Jump to content

Talk:Socionics/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Socionics and Intertype Relations theory

I know nothing about socionics. If it were really as wonderfully powerful as advocated in this section:

The main advantage of Socionics is the Intertype Relations theory. Based on a person's psychological type, it is now possible to anticipate development in human relationships with incredible accuracy. This makes it a very powerful tool when dealing with problems in relationships. Generally, a minimum amount of knowledge in Socionics is irreplaceable in any field of human activity where more than one person is involved, having to work or live together.

then I'd presumably know more about it. I'll remove this unbacked advertising. Martijn faassen 17:40, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well one of major achievement of Socionics comparing to Jung's theory is exactly intertype relations theory. No surprise that you didn't hear much about socionics - it is not well known outside of former Soviet Union republics. Andreas Kaufmann 07:56, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Another Socionics

What about socionics as a research field on the edge between sociology and distributed artificial intelligence? Yuunli 07:31, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Some links: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [] [6]

This is completely different thing. If you want to put information about it into Wikipedia, please create another page as well as disambiguation page. Andreas Kaufmann 07:56, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've moved the following links here from the main page:

Please discuss (referring to Wikipedia:External links) prior to adding them back in.
brenneman(t)(c) 13:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Let's get rid of the external links that deal with non-socionics material (ie Joe Butt and Marina Margaret Heiss' typings). Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Why are all those non-socionics tests, lists of famous people, and dating sites listed under the socionics article? This looks like the work of User8080, who tried to do the same thing at Wikisocion.org with the intention of forcing his view on the community that the MBTI and socionics are the same fundamental typology. --Rick DeLong (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Category: Psychology

Jcbutler removed this page from the category on psychology a while ago. I have no idea why, but in the spirit of democracy, I would afford him this chance to respond. He required that "empirical basis be established" that this be included in the category on psychology. I don't entirely understand this requirement. Would it be fulfilled by providing evidence that socionics is indeed psychology? If so, that, I believe, is already accomplished by this article's citation of Jung's works. At any rate, I'm putting the category back. Feel free to discuss. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed it because socionics is not an accepted part of the field of psychology. You would be hard pressed to find any mention of socionics in a psychology textbook or psychology journal. I just did a search on PsycINFO, the comprehensive database for scientific articles that have been published in psychology, and found zero hits. In fact, I even wonder how "notable" socionics is. I googled it and found that most of the links were to socionics websites promoting the theory, not independent sources. As a psychologist myself, I smell a strong whiff of B.S. when I look at this page. Citation of Jung is not empirical evidence. I'd like to see some, any evidence that socionics has any validity whatsoever. This is why I removed it from the psychology category. That said, I recognize that I may be utterly wrong and uninformed, and therefore I will take no further actions on this subject. The psychology category is a mish mash anyway, and socionics is probably no worse that much of what is already there. I'd still like to see the evidence, if there is any. Thanks. --Jcbutler 22:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I found one book at Amazon.com with "socionics" in the title, but it's a book on computer science, an interdisciplinary work on sociology and artificial intelligence. Now according to the Wikipedia article, there are some online books in Russian, so maybe... Yet one wonders why Pavlovian conditioning, Marxist psychology, etc. are all quite well known and documented, and yet socionics is so elusive. --Jcbutler 22:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
A fair criticism, I suppose. Unfortunately, almost all of the material on Socionics is in Russian, where Socionics is more well-known than in the West (although by no means universally acknowledged). I'm still not sure as to exactly what would constitute empirical evidence for your suggestion. However, I would agree that, as you mentioned, if numerous books, techniques, and concepts of dubious psychological value are included in the category on psychology, that Socionics probably deserves to be there as well. By the way, the field of socionics regarding artificial intelligence is an entirely different field which has by chance coined the same name. I don't know anything about it. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
You will find much more google hits if you search for соционика (Russian word for socionics). The www.ozon.ru counts 34 different books on socionics (see this link). Certainly, all books are in Russian. Andreas Kaufmann 22:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

By empirical evidence, I mean that we need to define our variables, measure them objectively, and then find statistical relationships that support our theoretical predictions. For example, the first table on the socionics page suggests that "thinking extroverts" are highly efficient, understand technology, and are well organized at work. I would hypothesize that computer programmers should be higher on Te, because programming requires these aptitudes. The next step is to find some computer programmers, give them a personality test (e.g. the Myers Briggs), and see if are overrepresented in the Te category, perhaps using a Chi-square test. If I find that they are not any more likely to be Te, or even worse, that they tend to be "sensing introverts", that would count as evidence against the theory.

Psychology has a long history of bad ideas. Freud, for example, believed that little boys have a sexual attraction to their mothers, and that, as a consequence, they have an unconscious fear of castration by their fathers. This idea is so thoroughly discredited now, that even Freud's followers have backed away from it. These days psychologists try to be more careful, so we want to see good evidence for any claim before we accept it. Socionics may not have been tested yet, but to the extent that it's based on Jung's theory (a student of Freud, by the way), it's already on shakey ground. Current research in psychology has shown that Jung's ideas are obsolete, and that "type tests" like the Myers Briggs are full of flaws. Costa and McCrae, among others, have demonstrated in numerous studies that a five-factor model provides a much better fit for personality test data.[7] This is getting a little long, so I better stop now, but thanks for reading. --Jcbutler 04:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe category "Psychology" is too broad. I replaced it with category "Personality", which is a subcategory of "Psychology" and also added categories "Personality typology" and "Interpersonal relations". I hope this is fine. Andreas Kaufmann 22:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
That's probably a better fit anyway. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 22:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Jcbutler, you're taking socionics out of context. Socionics deals with information metabolism -- the perception of information. There are two types, one for metabolism and one for exertion. To date no works exist in printed form accounting for the role of exertion in personality. (although if you'll look on the internet you'll find there is active discussion of it, with the16types.info being the primary hub) Together they create an amazingly complete theory of human motive that pretty well completes all of those remaining questions out there regarding psychology; even charisma is explained. Open your mind and you'll be witness to a wealth of information beyond your wildest dreams.

At the very least, don't call socionics psuedoscience. ...In fact, if you look closely, you'll see the interaction of your two types in your very speech. Some theories are by their nature too encompassing to be falsifiable. -- tcaudilllg

the above comment was clearly added by user tcaudilllg from the16types.info forums. tcaudilllg is a resident eccentric with no knowledge of socionics whatsoever. it may be poor judgment to take his comments at face value. you have been warned. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
If being called an "eccentric" means that I have successfully challenged the perception of socionics as "labeling", then I am guilty as charged. This article does a poor job of delineating what socionics does and does not explain as regards the personality. -- tcaudilllg

Extensive Wiki Type Descriptions and Resources

I am possibly going to split off the socionics types from the MBTI type pages shortly. Any assistance in such an endeavor by those knowledgeable in socionics would be appreciated. Or, feel free to discuss what you think should be done with the pages. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

i should get around to it eventually.... maybe... Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What about the IE elements?

There is very little discussion here about the information elements and aspects. Further, the functions are misidentified with the elements. Jung's functions correspond to Socionics information elements and the aspects they perceive, not to the placing orders of Model-A. Tcaudilllg 01:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Chuck Sirloin has been removing the external links to this page from the16types and socionix forums, citing WP:EL which states that links to social networking sites such as discussion forums should normally be avoided. However, I think that socionics should at least be considered as the exception to the rule due to the nature of these forums as some of the most substantial repositories of knowledge regarding socionics in the english language. any thoughts? Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 20:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason that forums are usually avoided as links is because they don't contribute to the article itself. Their inclusion generally serves only to draw attention to their presense. If the consensus of editors is to inlude it, then included it shall be.--Chuck Sirloin 15:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
true, they don't contribute to the article itself, but, as an encyclopedia, isn't it the place of wikipedia to offer a repository of other sources of information? 165.155.200.144 16:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 16:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I think I understand where you are coming from, but wikipedia is not meant to be a directory of links. WP:EL is pretty clear that about that. Now, one thing that you have mentioned is an expception under the "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources" criteria. I would maybe see that except that there is no way (usually) in a forum setting to prove who is who and what their credentials are. I will be honest, I have been to the forum and it main looks like purely a discussion forum where people talk about their own opinions and viewpoints which is mainy original research isn't it? I am not dead set against forum links, but I have yet to really be convinced about the need to include them here instead of just using google. Perhaps the suggestion at WP:EL would be a good way to go: "Where editors have not reached consensus on an appropriate list of links, a link to a well chosen web directory category could be used until such consensus can be reached. The Open Directory Project is often a neutral candidate, and may be added using the {{dmoz}} template"?--Chuck Sirloin 18:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
its true that both forums (socionix and the16types are the main ones) have significant segments of the forum devoted to socialization and a number of users who primarily share in their own theoretical and highly unproven ideas. and its also true that a great deal of the data accumulated on the forum is based on personal observation and is original research and is inhabited almost entirely by amateurs. i understand your objections to linking a discussion forum completely and in large measure agree that it is inappropriate to link to it, but i still feel that the situation of socionics is highly irregular and that wittholding the links is not entirely appropriate as a result of the fact that the forum itself does function as a repository of sorts for a variety of different socionics articles and concepts.
i think that we can probably reach a compromise based on what we link to. i wasn't able to find any adequate source of information at the Open Directory Project although to tell the truth I only scanned it over and am not very familiar with the project. At some point i think the main site at the16types.info will be up and running, which offers a more traditional database of information (although frankly i think the forum itself is a more reliable repository of information). when that occurs, i don't think linking to the site itself would be objectionable. until then i propose is that a section of the article discuss the popularity and role of socionics both in russia and in the west (this is a highly relevant issue in socionics which the article here on wikipedia doesn't seem to address), and mention in the section the importance of the forums and other online activity in the sharing of knowledge of socionics, and then include the forum links as a reference of some sort. would that be acceptable? Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Sure, I think that until better sources come along that will be ok. Since we seem to be the only two discussing it, I think we have a consensus!--Chuck Sirloin 16:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Not a consensus breaker here, however I would advocate on the side of more inclusion rather than less for now. Although I am currently inactive(and not very fond of) the16types forums, it did have a few helpful learning tools on it. It is conceivable to me that the forums are actually the best current source of Socionics in English, unqualified(or loony) as many of the posters may be. Sentineneve 15:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Theory of personality?

Most socionists would say that socionics is a "theory of information processing," not a "theory of personality," but I don't know if that would be splitting hairs. In other words, socionic types primarily describe the way people look at the world, how they talk about things, their consistent point of view, etc. Personality is a by-product of this to some degree, but it is still not the main focus of socionics. --Rick DeLong (talk) 13:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Psychologists call these trait theories. A personality theory need not describe a personality in full, so long as it draws the line between what it describes and what it doesn't. Actually I would argue the dynamics of model B, at least, say a lot about personality from a functional standpoint. (if not from a holistic one) Tcaudilllg (talk) 00:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Model B? T?

Good idea or bad idea to mention these in the article? Tcaudilllg (talk) 00:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary. We could mention some hypothetical material, but only in relation to specific limitations with classical material. Thehotelambush (talk) 03:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

the16types.info forum is dead

Its administrator isn't even involved with the site, and the remaining moderator is ruling with a heavy hand, banning for no other reason than ideological disputes. Just letting people know the situation.

From a position of formal operant thinking, the determination appears to be clear: ideological rule is unworkable and a community cannot have free discussion in the context of it. I myself have been banned for attempting to effect a change in the administration. Yet, I was one of the most prolific and informed posters on the site, certainly the one with the most leadership potential as regards the (legitimate) advancement of socionics as a field. Tcaudilllg (talk) 08:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The admin has returned, but moderator Expat is still on. He's the one who started the mess, and there is a general disagreement between the Right and Left contingents on basis of common principle. It comes down to this: if you dislike encountering aspects of reality for which you don't have a model -- if you resist change -- then the16types is your forum. If you think reality exists whether or not it has been modeled, and that one should adapt to its existence as one becomes aware of it, then socionix is your preferred choice. Tcaudilllg (talk) 20:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
This comment by user tcaudilllg (as well as several others) is essentially spreading forum politics to wikipedia. While it's certainly fair for him to disseminate his viewpoints, these kinds of comments both are unfamiliar to many people not aware of forum politics or tcaud's theories and it should be understood that they do not reflect any kind of neutral opinion. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Also, as it's fair for me to disseminate my opinions: i think tcaud is a complete crackpot. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
That's because you do not try to understand the real meaning of my theories of reality. In any case, the socionix "experiment" appears not to be going well; the resident denizens have little concept of respect for others. Social progressives, liberals, conservatives and theoconservatives are in need of a place to discuss socionics... without such the community will continue to dwindle.... the16types has had a change of ownership, so there may yet be a new day on the horizon. I have myself set aside a place for the discussion of my own ideas at http://www.armleg.com/psychorelative . But as for a competent restoration of the spirit which was once the16types... I can make no such recommendations at this time. Tcaudilllg (talk) 08:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
New site headed by the former admin of the16types.info: Metasocion.com. The place to meet and speak with competant personality theorists who have a passion for understanding people at the social level. Tcaudilllg (talk) 20:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

This article should be on the Wikipedia CD

People need to know about socionics. There needs to be more discussion of conserved relational traits. Tcaudilllg (talk) 05:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

MBTI correlations

INTp is equilevant to MBTI INTJ and INTj to INTP (same with others) This difference should be noted!! Marmotdan (talk) 07:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That is not correct. While one can reference Sergei Ganin's alleged comparisons that suggest this, many other socionists do not agree with this assessment, such as Dmitri Lytov, whose material could be referenced to refute this hypothesis. If you wish to discuss this and attribute the hypothesis to SG, feel free. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
That IS correct. The consensus has evolved: extroverted types are the same between MBTI and socionics; introverted types are J/P flipped between the two systems. (they are both derivatives of Jung's system, which makes their systematic equivalency inexorable). Niffweed... doesn't know what he's defending. I agree, the difference should be noted.
Lytov's material does not implicitly dismiss the phemenological correlation between the two systems. He only argues that more work should be done before making a definitive conclusion. Since these statements, new information has come to light which makes the official MBTI stance known; there is no more reason to argue about it. Let the West learn about that which distinguishes Augusta's philosophy from MBTT, and of the real underpinnings of type. Tcaudilllg (talk) 08:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
There is no "official" MBTI stance. If you wish to produce attributable source (Ganin or otherwise) as a basis to present the hypothesized relationship, then feel free to do so. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh really? Why not read the MBTI article on here, BEFORE shooting your mouth off? Tcaudilllg (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Several issues

There are several problems with content that User:User8080 has (re-)added to the page. Here are my reasons for reverting it.

  1. Removing references!
  2. Nothing from Freud appears in socionics except for the names "id", "ego", and "super-ego", which have somewhat different meanings in socionics (the socionics Id especially bears little resemblance). Hence his theories hardly merit a mention in the first sentence.
  3. Material on Jung's typology and the MBTI belongs on their respective pages, not on the socionics page. There is far too much discussion of and comparison with Jung's typology as it stands.
  4. In socionics four-letter type names are universally used with a lower-case last letter. INTJ, e.g., is an MBTI type and not a socionics one; hence it should not be used in this article. The supposed equivalence of the theories has been addressed and refuted by numerous prominent socionists, including Rick DeLong[8] and the Lytovs[9].
  5. Most of the sites User8080 lists are not socionics sites, let alone noteworthy ones.
  6. Rick DeLong is definitely a noteworthy socionics figure in the U.S., and so he should be mentioned.

Last, User8080's use of English grammar leaves much to be desired. Not all of the content added is necessarily problematic, but it can be added back in (I will copy-edit it if necessary). Thehotelambush (talk) 02:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality of article

No criticism point exists in this article. Criticism of the subject is rampant. Type descriptions need to be de-humanized, as many are written too personally to be of use for accurate self-classification. Fix. --58.164.70.135 (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? What criticisms are you referring to? And how are the type descriptions "too personal"? They are supposed to be about people... FYI updated versions exist on Wikisocion. Thehotelambush (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
A more scientific language should be used. If the words used have strong connotations, or are vague, then it is more difficult to classify objectively. If this is a science, it should be described as one, it should not sound like a horoscope.83.250.225.166 (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Eh, the brain has workings and not all people's brains work the same way. People have type. Type shapes how they cope. There are many dispositions in the brain to which there are no channels available for by which to institute change. DNA tends to rule the roost, so those dispositions manifest as traits. Types are traits of confidence. Seperating a person from their competencies is impossible in our culture of self-reliance. You look at Rod Blagovich, he's going to go to prison because he has confidence that there are times when you've got to let go of your convictions, and a lot of unconfidence in staying pure to principle. And his coming legal defeat is going to reinforce that self-same notion in his head: that sometimes you've gotta let go of your principles, and knowing when to let go of them is essential for getting by. Although, maybe he will learn to acknowledge that he can't expect the same of others, like he did when he tried to force his peers to lobby for Obama's seat. In any case, that confidence in the need to let go of conviction comes from somewhere, and whatever happens to try to shape that confidence must first pass the integrity rules of his ego like anybody else. The conscience must itself be shaped on basis of the confidence, such that ignoring the confidence = ignoring the conscience. He's insane, after a fashion, but insane by virtue of his brain, because the circuitry of the same shapes his conscience. So we say "he's a corrupt type". Is it effective to disconnect a person from their nature? Ethics (and those ISFPs/ESIs types who promote it) seems to have concluded "no". Tcaudilllg (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Basically no scientific criticisms of socionics exist in English due to the relative obscurity of the topic. No doubt criticisms similar to that of the MBTI's reception would exist, but if there are any, they're in russian circles and I don't know about and can't contribute information on them. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Criticism of socionics: http://www.metasocion.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=233 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcaudilllg (talk • contribs) 02:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sufficient empirical substantiation?

I dare venture this is Rick DeLong's (uninformed) opinion. Consider this article:

http://money.cnn.hu/2009/02/11/news/economy/introverts.fortune/?postversion=2009021309

MBTI is already considered partially validated, and brain studies have indeed correlated introversion with the function of inner speech. That's one of three dichotomies. Do we doubt that the other two will be found as well? It's a matter of years, not decades. If CNN believes MBTI, then I dare say socionics, which models the exact same phenomena set (if differently), is believed by CNN as well.

And of course there's Model T, which hasn't even been mentioned in the article. Let's change that. Tcaudilllg (talk) 06:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I added an Esoteric links section, which was removed by tcaudilllg on the basis of self-promotion, so now there is a link under the header section that leads to tattwas, which has much of the information that use to be there before tcaudilllg removed it.

What? Substantiate that claim. Tcaudilllg (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Nevermind. For a moment I thought you were saying that I was self-promoting myself, which I am clearly not. Tcaudilllg (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I was referring to the statement you made on my talk page stating that it seemed I was doing self-promotion. As a result I took out anything that sounded self-promoting and moved the article to the tattwas article. The only thing that remains of that information in this socionics article is a link to the tattwas article. I hope that people will leave the link alone here, because it is valid socionics information. It erks me that people attempt to hide the truth about socionics simply because it may annoy them that socionics is basically the zodiac, and can be proven blatantly to be such. --Rmcnew (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Dispute between user tcaudilllg and user8080

Alright user8080, what are your arguments? Why do you keep reverting my bids to make this page a more up-to-date account of socionics research? You have removed several citations from reliable sources which document the field, and offered none of your own, save from a source who, although possessing of contacts within the field, is hardly an impartial observer. (I'm speaking of Rick DeLong) Tcaudilllg (talk) 02:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The same user had also fraudulently reverted some places that spoke of the esoteric links to socionics. Please stop editing this information out. Thanks. --Rmcnew (talk) 15:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, It's been a week and no reply. I think he's just reacting and is only going to respond if the page is edited. he's probably got it on watch and is getting email alerts whenever an edit is made. I don't think he intends to work out the dispute, because he quite frankly probably has a Ghaleon complex. Tcaudilllg (talk) 08:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

User8080, if you continue to revert my edits without justification, including 1) adding any more MBTI material (including MBTI abbreviations in place of standard socionics ones, as well as MBTI links which belong, if anywhere, on the MBTI page), and 2) removing clearly relevant and notable information about Rick DeLong's socionics sites -- then I will be forced to seek mediation. I also think most of the Jungian material is probably irrelevant to the article, but I will leave the section for now. Mcnew, I have also removed the link to tattwas, since the supposed connection constitutes original research on your part. Thehotelambush (talk) 07:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Your reason to remove the link the the article tattwas is unjustified on account of the fact that it is relevant and verifiable information on the esoteric nature of socionics in relation to the tattwas, and does not constitute original research. It is also incorrect to say it is a supposed connection; it is a fact that socionics borrowed the tattwas from Hindu philosophy and the connected cosmology. The words "hypothesis", "hypothesized" and the phrases "it has been hypothesized that" and "there is much evidence to suggest" are in the article to allow for neutrality in the issue. Leave the link where it is on the socionics page, thanks. --Rmcnew (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I would take issue with you removing any of the Jung stuff. This isn't Wikisocion and you're not going to have your way unchallenged.
  1. 2 DeLong has ONE claim for mention here and that is his insider status. That in itself is only relevant. The man is not an expert on socionics by any stretch of the word, having no formal qualifications as such. Anything which is not a restatement of published work is original research on DeLong's part.
I'm going to reinsert the Model T/B bit. As I understand it you can't back up the claim that only an extreme fringe use VI, because in that case you would be including Gulenko, who created the technique, in that group and you have no position from which to say that of Gulenko. Tcaudilllg (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I see now that User:Jbolden1517 has added the MBTI names. Please note that one refers to, e.g., SEI as ISFp in Socionics, not as ISFj (or ISFJ for that matter). The type names have been borrowed from Myers-Briggs but the types themselves have little to no empirical connection to Myers-Briggs types (see [10], [11], [12] for references). Thehotelambush (talk) 07:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Well first off that isn't a revert, it was a change. I don't have any problem with the current version, I had a problems with redefining the terms. If we want to just call them "4 letter" and use the "3 letter" term through out the article that's fine. Socionicss free to develop its own abbreviations on wikipedia it is not free to redefine Myers-Briggs. That an INFP means a Ni dominant no Fi pulls in sources outside socionics in which case the overwhelming number of sources says the opposite of what the article was asserting. Even worse was when it was calling them "Myers-Briggs names". I would want to add a column to the table though with Myers Briggs names at least once for clarity.
As for SEI I think you are simply incorrect. See for example IEI which I believe is correct. jbolden1517Talk 12:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Notice the moment you tried to use the standard definitions an anonymous editor started changing the table. There is no way to use these terms this way without being ultra explicit about the connection. jbolden1517Talk 14:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I just thought of a great idea

Let's submit this page for review! Tcaudilllg (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

What review? --Rmcnew (talk) 01:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently some people want to silence the information linking socionics to the occult, cosmology, and hindu thinking by claiming that the information is original research or that there is no content in the header section. There can be no content under the header on account of the preservation of the current article for psychology and similar research, and therefore a link was provided. The fraudulent charge of original research is being addressed and there will be some relevant published articles added, albeit in russian, as links to sources in the tattwas article. Keep the link where it is, thanks. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC) [13]

You should write the section then worry about the content. But right now what you have is a section consisting of a single link which is a violation of the manual of style, for good reason. I'll wait for a day or so for you to create content, but then it needs to be there if you want a dedicated section and not just a "see also". Also in looking of the tattwas link I have serious questions about the host article not being original research. I don't see any support of the socionics connection you are proposing in sources. The tattwas article as it stands is likely to get AFDed. jbolden1517Talk 01:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The main problem I see with people finding it easy to attempt to claim that what I have written is origional research is because I am one of the few people who says anything in english about the connections. I know for a fact and you know for a fact that one would be hard pressed to find any articles in english that spoke of anything socionics and philosophical, mystical, occult, tattwas, and chakra related, but those sort of articles do exist in the russian language. I don't really like the fact that people attempt to claim this is all origional research when you know that socionics is such an obscure field in the west, that you can basically claim the same about anyone who takes anything from russian texts that most people don't talk about. I remember that when I owned and operated the16types.info there were members who got regularly crucified for bringing most anything that was any different than what most people had already talked about, and these were legitimate socionic theories from russia from gulenko and others that were being rediculed. I am pretty sure that if more people talked about the actual connections socionics had to the occult, hindu philosophy, chakras and such this origional research bit won't be an issue with any of you. The problem is that no one seems to value the connections, even though they are legit, valid, and are literal fact. Plus, I know that it is quite unlikely to happen that many people in the west are going to admit that socionics is basically the zodiac, even when it is shown to them plainly in the most obvious way ever. You want to present it as something scientific. Well, good luck with that. Socionics is as cosmological as it comes. You are only pulling the wool over your eyes to think otherwise.--Rmcnew (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Cite the Russian sources in the Tattwas article. No one is yet objecting to sources, I'm saying the Tattwas article doesn't have sources and thus this article has a problem asserting what you are claiming. And you probably shouldn't assume what other editor's opinions are. For information, I consider socionics to be a classification scheme combined with a relationship theory. I don't consider it scientific nor spiritual but rather more of a systemization of Jung. jbolden1517Talk 18:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I am currently in the process of putting verifiable links in the tattwas article in the russian language. More should be added over time. I also put some more content under the esoteric section per your request. --Rmcnew (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent start. If I may recommend, since this is going to be contentious hit each point: WP:CITE and WP:CITET may be helpful for instructions and I'll be glad to help. jbolden1517Talk 19:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that. --Rmcnew (talk) 23:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

neutrality issue tag

In light of recent objections to the posting of valid, verifiable, and neutral information concerning the links socionics has to the occult, the zodiac, tattwas, and chakras I am going to put up a "neutrality" issue tag until this issue is resolved.--Rmcnew (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I may add some texts within the next few days concerning the philosophical, metaphysical aspect of socionics to make the article more neutral sounding. Absolutely nothing about this has been added previously and should be addressed in an appropriate fashion. Feel free to contribute. --Rmcnew (talk) 02:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You really need to get the tattwas article cited up first. You are quite likely just going to get reverted with no RSes for the whole theory you are outlining. Right now you have the evidence in the tattwas article which could be deleted for no RSes and then no RSes here. I would stop adding stuff and start citing in Tattwas jbolden1517Talk 03:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I am adding articles to both as I find them. Not sure who it was, but someone flagged the socionics articles for not citing enough sources. --Rmcnew (talk) 17:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I just flagged the Tattwas article for the same thing. --Rmcnew (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Just added four references to this article and nine to the other article. --Rmcnew (talk) 00:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikisocion not a reliable source

I'm taking out the Wikisocion cites, but not removing the content itself. There are translations of articles available on Wikisocion which can be linked to for this purpose. Tcaudilllg (talk) 06:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Is that a good idea? Someone has flagged this page already for not providing enough verified sources. It might be wise to at least link to the few sources there are that are written in proper english. Is webtranslated stuff valid? That is also all I am able to cite. --Rmcnew (talk) 17:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because it's a word-for-word transcription. Not totally perfect, of course, but a majority of passages are coherent.

Russian is not difficult to translate to English. You just have to be familiar with the language and the alphabet. It would take a few days to translate a 10 page article like socionists usually put out, unless you're fluent in it. Less time if you machine translated it first and only hand translated the untranslated bits.

As it is, I just have no incentive to translate any of those articles beyond what the machine offers, because it's not clear anything of great importance will be clarified by it. What we need is more articles, not better translated articles. To anyone who is familiar with Rick's teaching of Model A, machine translation is effective enough. Tcaudilllg (talk) 22:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like the cites replaced not just removed. Virtually this whole article is missing citations as is. Where they exist please don't make it worse. jbolden1517Talk 04:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I had no intention of removing the cites outright. Tcaudilllg (talk) 21:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Reference list

Does anyone know how to edit the reference list? I have some published articles I want to add to it. --Rmcnew (talk) 00:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found out that it is a reference tag. --Rmcnew (talk) 00:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm removing this section, as well as its "references" because those articles do not at all explain how or why socionics has "strong verifiable ties to hindu philosophy, tattwas, the western zodiac, cosmology, mysticism, and the occult." There is no evidence listed anywhere at all showing that socionics was derived from or influenced by these things. Powpowpowpowpow (talk) 17:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You argument does not hold water. You can not remove the valid sources and then claim there is no support. There is abundant evidence of all these things in the sources you insist on removing. Those articles are direct proof in themselves. --Rmcnew (talk) 22:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

support. there should be no links to mysticism or the zodiac, and the only evidence suggesting that there is comes in the form of original research conducted by user rmcnew at [metasocion.com]. i think that by the nature of the field of socionics, there is very little original material in the english language, and i think it is fine to reference the existence of these ideas in a NPOV context. stating, however, that there exist "strong, verifiable ties" to occult and mysticism is nonsense, and many socionists disagree with the claim; i have never seen any russian sources talk about socionics in connection to alchemy or mysticism at all. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 22:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I have provided several linked articles from Bukalov himself where he has linked socionics to the occult. You removal of the sources is unjustified, and I have stated again and again that this is not origional research. I have posted socionics articles in russian that discuss chakras and hindu thinking and how they relate to socionics, which you removed and then attempted to claim that there were no sources. I am reverting all of all your changes against on the basis of a neutrality dispute that there are people who want to suppress the point of view that socionics has verifiable occult connections. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, I am considering the fact that the disagreement was followed after removing the legitimate sources a form of wiki vandalism and deceitful. You can not remove legitimate sources and then claim there is no evidence on that basis. Niffweeds description of the esoteric discussion in the east where he claims this is not the case and that socionic authors disagree with these ties is also false and biased, as these things are typically known and discussed there more than they are in the west and in english. The sources that were removed prove this fact. Bukalov and several other socionics authors actually have quite a few articles where the occult and the links to socionics is discussed and proven to have correspondences. The one Bukalov article I posted actually links socionics to the occult and amerindian cosmology, and he says blatantly that there are exact correspondances. It is justified to say I am the only one that has been doing any research in english, but I am not the only socionists making these links and comparisons and there are certainly enough published sources in the russian langauge to quote and to show this. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


It should be noted that the link (link 20) used to show that Aushra Augusta was "involved with mysticism" states that this involvement happened in her later years, after the creation of Socionics. The statement "hindu philosophical thinking, chakras, and cosmological connections have been widely discussed topics among socionics authors" is hardly supported by the two links provided (links 21 and 22). Link 21 is an article by someone called Olga Krylova and talks about chakras and how it's important to [translation] "draw parallels between these ancient teachings and the young science of Socionics". One of the fifteen resources cited looks like it might actually be to do with socionics - and that particular resource is used as a tenuous way of justifying that parallels are drawn between the chakras and socionics! Link 21 is by Ekaterina Filatova, and seems to be claiming that the chakras can be used to explain diseases that each type is prone too. It is not at all substantitive. The four people who carried out the studies in the article are all from St. Petersburg, as is Filatova. The statement "hindu philosophical thinking, chakras, and cosmological connections have been widely discussed topics among socionics authors" is unqualified - okay, so chakras have been discussed in two articles, but what about the other things? And where's the proof that these things are widely talked about?

Link 18 provides some case study about how Alexander Bukalov has used socionics to show that the Socionics types can be linked to sixteen magical warriors described in an anthropological study by Carlos Castaneda - but it is clear that this link was established after the socionics types were defined. Also, the article does nothing to show that there is any connection, and the works of Carlos Castaneda have been shown to be highly suspect - i.e., madeup stories. Hardly a "strong verifiable tie" to socionics. The "Estoric links to Socionics" section should be redeleted. RudieBoy (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

As per the descriptions of the relevant links here by RudieBoy above, there is no reason that there are "strong verifiable ties." While a neutral and factual discussion of the ties between socionics and the occult is in my opinion fine, the page at present hardly consists of this style of treatment. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 06:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I would not say that this is a valid argument to use to claim that the article should be deleted, these articles support exactly what the article is about, and that is that socionic professions have drawn parallels between the occult, socionics, cosmological reasoning, and etc. The article itself does not make any claims as to the origins of socionics. Before or after the fact is insiginifigant. Considering the fact that Ausura Augusta herself wrote a couple of books on esotericism and chakras in russian, you would pretty much be giving her a slap in the face to make a claim that Ausura Augusta or socionics in general never ever drew theory from any of these things. Socionist are still drawing parallels and conclusions to these thing.

All I am going to say is that it is reasonable to dispute individual qualities of articles, but I am extremely disappointed in the lack of neutrality that is being shown in consideration to these things. I am going to continue to consider any deleteing of the entirety of information on this in this article a stance of non-neutral wikivandalism that is intended to squash out of valid point of view in the socionics world, and everything will be rereverted back on that basis. I have no problem at all with people helping to improve the quality of the section or to add sources, but deleting the whole thing is biased and inexcusable, and whoever keeps deleting on that basis should either knock it off or deserve a kick in the ass by buddha's boot. That is all I am going to say about it. --Rmcnew (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Why not provide sources for these two books that Aushra Augusta supposedly wrote? Before or after the fact IS significant, because if these ties were made after the creation of Socionics, then another article should be made which links to the Socionics page - the Socionics page should not link to the tattwa page for example. The article DOES make claim as to the origin of socionics, for example, with the statement "The extent socionics has derived theory from these sources is an issue of debate among westerners" - I believe that you are the only person that has claimed that Socionics has 'estoric' origins...and you have consistently shown yourself unable to write something with a non-neutral POV. RudieBoy (talk) 22:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes. I'm reverting everything until Rmcnew can provide a source that sufficiently shows that socionics has "strong verifiable ties to hindu philosophy, tattwas, the western zodiac, cosmology, mysticism, and the occult." Powpowpowpowpow (talk) 00:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

There are strong verifiable ties from socionics to hindu philosophy, tattwas, the western zodiac, cosmology, mysticism, and the occult. While it is fair for you to disagree and debate that aspect individually, don't let me catch you deleting the whole article again because of your disagreement of that one statement. It is non-neutral and I'll just rerevert the whole article. --Rmcnew (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I rereverted the Esoteric Article on account of the fact that this is a valid point of view in the world of socionics and an insistence in erasing the whole article and viewpoint is a lack of neutrality. Please feel free to dispute individual aspects of the article, but erasing the whole thing will only get it rereverted back on the basis that deleting the whole article is non-neutral. Thanks. --Rmcnew (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the word "strong" from the Esoteric Article where it said "strong verifiable ties to the occult" on account of the fact that whether the ties are strong or weak is simply a matter of opinion, and apparently seems to be an issue with the non-neutral individual who insists on removing the whole article instead of just removeing that little part and disputing that one point, which is what should be happening for neutrality sake. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


The word 'verifiable' is also contentious, considering that the Carlos Castaneda anthropological study for example appears to have been manufactured, and the other two links provide no substantitive basis to prove a link between chakras and socionics. You have also not shown that these topics have been widely discussed amongst socionics authors. In addition, the statement "socionics itself is blatantly secular" is a non-neutral POV.

P.S. At least three people think on this page alone think that the whole section should be removed, not just a single individual. RudieBoy (talk) 22:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Just because several people think that for whatever reason does not make it an appropriate action. It is better to do a compromise. The topic is widely discussed among socionics authors, and as I have said even Augusta herself wrote books on Chakras and Esoteric sounding things that did not catch on. Are you going to say that there would be no "no substantive basis" if I suddenly came in with a link of an article or source that came from the Horses mouth herself? It is a valid part of socionics and it deserves to be recognized much as many of the other subarticles do, albeit in a neutral manner. I am sure there are other sections in the socionics article that can be equally disputed. I doubt that anyone will dispute them. Say anything about the occult, you get disputes. That does not follow. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

132 Augusta is an RS on socionics. Please get a link to an article or a source by her. That resolves the what to include and if we can include immediately. jbolden1517Talk 03:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
As the wikisocion article (which is not valid source material anyway) on Augusta states, Augusta was not involved in mysticism until later in her life, nearing her death. Hence the body of works that Augusta produced on socionics (as far as i know) had no relationship to mysticism. Unless mcnew can provide something that definitively states otherwise, I think that the suggestion that Augusta's work on socionics had any relationship to mysticism, alchemy, or the zodiac, is spurious and false. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 06:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
as rudie boy stated earlier; i did not see this. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 06:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all niffweed you are correct to state the wikisocion article is not a valid source to quote that Ausura Augusta was involved in mysticism, and I will explain why. The article is heavily biased against Ausura Augustas involvement with mysticism and the occult, and while there is an admission in the wikisocion article that Ausura Augusta was involved in mysticism, to this fact the article in a non-neutral way attempts to downplay the admission of Ausura Augustas involvement in mysticism by claiming it was "later in her life", when in reality is could have been much earlier that that. It could have been that Ausura Augusta was involved in mysticism all her life and the author of the article wanted to downplay this by stating it was "later in her life and drew criticism", so I am in utmost agreement that the article is not reliable in that it attempts to downplay Ausura Augusta's involvement with mysticism and esotericism. I also challenge your biased notion that the relationship to mysticism, alchemy, or the zodiac, is spurious and false on the basis that you have absolutely no substantive proof whatsoever that socionics is not involved with the occult, in light of the fact that there are many sources, articles, and socionics authors which do claim there are occult links and correspondances to socionics and I would like you to provide source articles immediately from prominent socionic authors that state that Ausura Augusta was not ever involved with mysticism and that there are no ties to esotericism, chakras, or hindu philosophy in socionics. Until you can do this I ask that you remain silent on the issue, as you have nothing worthwhile to provide to the discussion at hand. Good luck with that. I know for a fact you will only find in russian information and authors which link all these things together in some way. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Augusta's involvement with mysticism did not occur later in life? Source? That is certainly not supported by the sources you have linked so far. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 23:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The sources linked in english have shown that augusta has indeed been involved with mysticism. Again I agree with the conclusion that the article source detailing that Ausura Augustas involvement with mysticism is not necessarily a valid source on the basis that the author attempted to downplay Ausura Augusta's involvement in mysticism. It should be established that Ausura Augusta was indeed involved with mysticism. The debate is how far that has influenced socionics theory. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The source in question is the Wikisocion page on Ausra Augusta, and the fragment in question involving mysticism was written by Rick DeLong. While I accede the possibility that Ausra Augusta was involved with mysticism, I fail to see any reason to believe that the information on that source is intentionally deceptive, and I fail to see why that alone makes it an invalid source (the freely editable nature of the environment in which the source is constructed, by contrast, could conceivably qualify it as an illegitimate source). Furthermore, there exist no sources in english except the wikisocion article in english which at all discuss aushra's relationship to mysticism. Accepting RudieBoy's summary of the other sources, none of them deal with Augusta's involvement in mysticism either. I fail to see why any sources suggest a relationship between Augusta's interest in mysticism at a time period when she was still writing on socionics. If I am incorrect on this matter, please point out to me in one of the existing links where this connection is established. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 02:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me reitterate this point I am making. The socionics article in question confesses that Ausura Augusta was involved with mysticism, which according to my own personal correspondance with Rick Dulong does encompass Chakras and Hindu Philosophy. Now, the article states that "Ausura Augusta was involved with mysticism later in life" and it also states that "her involvement in mysticism drew criticism". The problem with this statement is that it says nothing about her early life involvement, and it says nothing about the criticism. She may or may not have been involved with mysticism in her early life. And why was she being criticised? The confession to Ausura Augustas involvement with mysticism is cloaked with a denial to the effect and then a downplayer. It is like someone saying "OHHH LOOOK ... A WITCH ON A BROOMSTICK" and then when people look and don't actually see a witch, that person goes "Just kidding!" So what is true? Is it Rick Delong's confession that Ausura Augusta was involved with mysticism or utter denial that the case is an extremely good one that socionics is just some Hindu and Occult philosophy mashup. I think the fact that Rick Delong bothered to deny his own testimony to the fact speaks for itself. Obviously he is not wanting to be bold enough to admit the truth to people. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You have no basis for that claim. The article is entirely factual in its discussion of Augusta's mysticism (which consists of exactly one sentence). The article clearly implies that Augusta's mystical inclinations were confined to the end of her life, and a rational reader would presumably take this to mean that other socionists' criticism rested on the fact that they believed Augusta's mystical ideas unscientific. There is no basis whatsoever for your accusal of DeLong's withholding of the truth; your interpretation is completely unsupported by the words on the page. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 04:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Rmcnew, you are accusing someone of intellectual dishonesty, which without any evidence whatsoever is completely unacceptable. If there is evidence that Aushra Augusta was involved in mysticism before the proposition of Socionics theory and that this may have played a part, then provide this evidence. I should note there is an important difference between the claim that Augusta proposed Socionics after she died in 2005 and the claim that she proposed it before then.
The sentence "While socionics itself is typically secular, founder Ausura Augusta herself was verifiable involved with mysticism" is misleading even if true - it gives the impression that 'mysticism' played a role in the creation of Socionics. The term 'mysticism' is also such a vague word that Aushra becoming involved with mysticism could simply mean as something as commonplace as becoming a Christian...and...where would the evidence be that mysticism played a part in the creation of Socionics theory? RudieBoy (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Note also that the IP address for User:69.12.233.200 is located in Chico, CA, which as a matter of public knowledge is the residence of user rmcnew. It therefore seems extremely probable that posting as an anon is merely as a sock to further garner support for his point. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 02:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
All these different 'mystical' notions like esotericism, chakras, hindu philosophy, the western zodiac, tattwas, cosmology, and the occult should not be used as a single proof that socionics has origins in 'mysticism'. Each one of these notions should be described on their own merits - I get the impression that these words are being thrown around and being used in a vague sense to make a case. A million tenuous claims are not better than a single strongly made case. I see that some people in St. Petersburg have tried to used the chakras in conjuction with socionics as a means of understanding health problems or somesuch - this is a single report which does not attempt to make any justification for any connections made through testable means. It certainly does not say that socionics has its origins in 'mysticism'. The chakras had simply nothing to do with how the socionics types were derived. If a study on some website showed that the socionics types could each be correlated with a species of dinosaur without any actual proof, what would that mean do you think? --Rmcnew (talk) 21:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)RudieBoy (talk) 19:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

"The chakras had simply nothing to do with how the socionics types were derived." This actually can be disputed. The chakras and the tattwas in hindu philosophy are linked. The socionics authors with sources in question that have been shown were linking the chakras, element function, and socionics together in a way to understand health. This is exactly what is done in metaphysical healing practices that involve chakras and healing work. Taking an understanding of hindu philosophy and metaphysical reasoning, it would be conclusive that hindu philosophy and socionic theory is actually either one in the same or one decended from the other. This is especially evidence since the tattwas look very close to the socionic functions. Obviously only sourced material should be mentioned. This is valid enough to subtantiate this. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You also completely missed the article that talks about Hindu Philosophy such as though it was one with socionics and then goes right into talking about chakras and functions. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

As has already been stated, you are merely repeating your argument and offering no substantiation whatsoever. These sources offer tentative hypotheses for relationships between socionics and various mystical ideas. They do not demonstrate "strong verifiable ties," and they contain no reference to the suggestion that socionics was developed by Augusta with alchemy, hindu mythology, astrology, or anything similar in mind. Nor, incidentally, is there any reference to mysticism in the writings of Augusta as transcribed on socionics.us. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 04:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
User:Rmcnew I think it is somewhat redundant for "Hindu philosophy" and "chakras" to both be mentioned when just "chakras" would have done. Now, Socionics theory was proposed after examining successful and unsuccessful relationships over a number of years, and so Socionics 'theory' has at least some degree of foundation. Considering that this is the nature of Socionics, and considering that Socionics is fundamentally a theory about human relationships, it is not justifiable to make reference a handful of resources which claim that Socionics has "esoteric" ties while providing no quantitative data. The articles are just coffee-table journalism - and in the case of the Carlos Castaneda article, probably fraudulent. I haven't been able to pass judgement on the western zodiac article, as you still haven't referenced the name of the journal in which the article can be found or provided a link to a website where it can be located. Apart from those references not being at all satisfactory, you have not even attempted to justify how tattwas, cosmology, mysticism, and the occult have "verifiable ties" to Socionics - if there is a degree of overlap with other vague terms, this should be made clear. RudieBoy (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mention this before, but the article apparently used to show that socionics has "verifiable ties" to the "western zodiac" does not provide the name of the journal in which the article was published, or a link to the article (Correspondence of socionics functions to the elements of the western tradition by Yakubovskiy, T.S.). The whole "Esoteric links to Socionics" section is still unsatisfactory, and should be removed soon unless the claims are properly substantiated. RudieBoy (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not at all satisfied that anyone here has provided any substantial arguments for anything to be removed. All I see here is people who want to promote an unneutral view to squash what they view as another non-neutral point of view. Again, I am going to state that compromises are much better. There is enough sufficient evidence to keep the category there indefinitely. If it gets removed, it can just be put back and debated again. The links do prove exactly what the title claims, and that there are esoteric links to socionics, and that socionic authors have not only been finding links between socionics and the occult, they have been involved openly with hindu philosophy, chakras, and that Ausura Augusta was involved with the same. These fact are uncontestable. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Ohhh Gee, just look at this jewel right here "From the teachings of the chakras, the impact of them on a conscious, psychoemotional life and human health and the coupling of the teachings of Socionics introduces this article." http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&u=http://club.trios.e-gloryon.com/index.html%3Fpage%3D6507071433&ei=TEEkSqGAKo_6tgO9_7iBBA&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=2&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%25D0%25A7%25D0%25B0%25D0%25BA%25D1%2580%25D0%25B5%2B%25D0%25A1%25D0%25BE%25D1%2586%25D0%25B8%25D0%25BE%25D0%25BD%25D0%25B8%25D0%25BA%25D0%25B0%26hl%3Den

You seem to be unable to differentiate between fact and an opinion. That article merely attempts to "couple" Socionics with the chakras. RudieBoy (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ohhh look at this article! It speaks of the Chakras in accordance consciousness, mentions mind, body, and spirit and then goes on to show that the socionic functions correspond to chakras! Holy Crap ... who the hell can not see this information for what it is? It even mentions Yogis, Amerindian Toltec Shamans, Aura Fields and Hinduism itself! Golly em Gee more claims for unsubstantiated sources I bet. http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&u=http://my.mail.ru/community/socionic/6A524BFFBBE68028.html&ei=TEEkSqGAKo_6tgO9_7iBBA&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=4&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%25D0%25A7%25D0%25B0%25D0%25BA%25D1%2580%25D0%25B5%2B%25D0%25A1%25D0%25BE%25D1%2586%25D0%25B8%25D0%25BE%25D0%25BD%25D0%25B8%25D0%25BA%25D0%25B0%26hl%3Den —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmcnew (talk • contribs) 21:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It attempts to show that the socionic functions correlate with the chakras, but it provides no proof. The article does not even attempt to justify the claim that "modern psychology regards human consciousness consisting of three "chakras": thinking, feelings and will." Note that none of the references have anything to do with Socionics or mainstream psychology. The article could say mention that moon is made of cheese but it wouldn't actually make any difference. Just because a silverfish is called a silverfish does not make a silverfish a silver fish. RudieBoy (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I should also note that there is a drastic different in thought on the subject of esotericism, occultism, chakras, hindu philosophy between the Russian forum http://www.socionik.com/thread/8850.html and the English language forum http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/general-discussion-model/25677-i-want-declare-war.html ... apparently the English speaking forum is not on par with the Russian speaking one in regards to chakras, hindu philosophy, cosmology, the occult and the like. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

A forum is an even less reliable source for information than wikipedia [needs citation]. RudieBoy (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Socionics article renamed Socionics(typology)

To diffrentiate between the scientific robotic socionics that was derived in germany and deals with sociology, psychology, and artificial intelligence applications with computer and electronics and between the theory of the same name that has nothing to do with anything electronic at all and was derived by Asura Augusta, and also for neutrality purposes with the tattwa and esoteric socionic articles socionics now appropiatelly redirects to the main disambiguation page and the origional socionics page has be appropiatelly renamed Socionics(typology) to avoid confusion between the robotic socionics derived in germany and the one created by Ausura Augusta, which have nothing to do with each other. --Rmcnew (talk) 20:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Link: http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/1/3/5.html [14]

inappropriate. register my disapproval of this course of action. they deal with the same subject matter. the esotericism article should be dispensed with. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 01:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Has everyone come to terms yet the the esoteric subsection deserves a place and is neutral

Considering that there are people objecting who are doing so on a basis of ignorance I could be shooting myself in the foot by asking again, but I want to know. Has everyone come to terms yet that the esoteric section deserves a place and is neutral information? --Rmcnew (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It definitely doesn't. This article considers socionics on basis of form, as a "hard science". We need only link to it in the "see also" section. Olga's piece on the chakra's solidifies the article. You could probably even link to it from the psychoanalysis article and integrate socionics proper into it, in the context of its links to Freud. She's got a masters degree in psychology, which pretty much equals power. She's also been published in several reliable sources, meaning that to exclude her view at this point is NPOV. Tcaudilllg (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I knew your intentions from the beginning. I was quite aware that you had initially created the other section socionics(metaphysics) as bait to move the information once things were filled in on the other someone else, and you would then use that as a reason to claim that this is a hard science article as an attempt to sever off information. Well, I disagree with removing the article for that motive. I think that this is a general socionics article, and that this information is required for neutrality purposes, so that one view is not opressing another in this article. And by that I mean 'in this article'. I do agree that Olga is an authority of sorts within the socionics field. That does not necessarily necessitate the removal of information simply because the artical category you created got filled in (I took the time to do it). --Rmcnew (talk) 21:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

And by the way Tchaud, you are definatelly INTj, meaning Earth and Fire. You are an expert in 'holding your position' and baiting people around. I mind you though that I can read peoples intentions from a distance, so I am rarely fooled. And yes, I still hold that I can change the conditions of my own psyche by acts of will. You, however, seemed fixed to Earth(Ti) and Fire(Ne), and that is all you ever seem to use, as most of you only seem fixed to certain functions. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

And I wholeheartedly admit the form I just took is ESTp and Extraverted Senseing. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This is silly. You are discrediting socionics by keeping this material in there. The behaviorists want a reason to believe typology is bullshit and you're giving it to them. You are my friend and I don't want to oppose you, but I will if I must. Hard science and soft science are very different disciplines. They should be kept separate expect to the extent that the hard can explain the soft. Tcaudilllg (talk) 03:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, you are not typeless. You're merely agnostic as to what your form really is.
I created that article so your group, the metaphysicians, could get a fair say. As it is, I'm going to recommend it to the project which deals with cognitive minorities, the Rational Skepticism group. I would love to see you guys get a fair hearing in public, but you guys are going to have to fight for it because there are a lot of skeptics out there and very, very few metaphysicians. ...Insisting on having your view included in the main socionics Wikipedia article is not the way to beat the drum. Not the least, you are misrepresenting Rick's views, which is plagiarism according to Ashford University. If I wrote stuff like this in my papers, I would be expelled. Tcaudilllg (talk) 10:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Since you put it that way, I will remove the material willfully. I mind you though that I am a truth-seeker, and I simply seek out the truth. To me it appears as though some are hiding the truth. Yet, I am in agreement with you about the rational skeptics and bahviorists, and I would consider any input from them to be of a low critical discouraging quality worth the price of a pile of cow manure. I think they are a bunch of ignorant bullies who rely on small samples of one thing to discredit everything related to that thing, and spread mistruths. They would probably just distort the truth of what I am saying --Rmcnew (talk) 19:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I am necessarily distorting what Rick is saying. Rick knows that Ausura Augusta was into esoteric things. I don't think he is going to say much more than he already has about it. --Rmcnew (talk) 19:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

the esotericism section is not verifiable and does not deserve its own article nor its own section. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 01:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Socionics itself is not going to be "very verifiable" if you keep the attitude up that certain aspects of socionics "should be hidden" and "not talked about". --Rmcnew (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Purification...

Well the admins say we should model this article after the Russian version, so let's do it. First up, obliterate all mention of the MBTI. If the relationship is really noteworthy, we'll put it in a separate article. Tcaudilllg (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC).

This is Pseudoscience right? Why no mention?

Listen, I'm no psychologist but this reeks of pseudoscience. It's not a widley accepted theory and it doesn't have a lot of empirical evidence to back it up from what I can tell. I've showed this to some Psychology professors at the college I attend, and they all say it's bunk.

The most obvious pseudoscientific element of socionics is that it actually holds true that a persons outer appearence can predict their personality - Sounds a bit like Physiognomy to me. http://socionics.com/advan/vi/vi.htm Here is a website that tries to explain the "Socionic Principles of Visual Identification".

Is there anything that can be done about this? Can someone rewrite this article? It has strong POV, and nothing in the article mentions that many people find it to be pseudoscientific. -Anonymous User.

Socionics is not a "widely accepted theory" in the English speaking world because it is virtually unknown. Also, the site you quote -- www.socionics.com -- is not representative of the field as it actually exists in the former Soviet Union. The author overemphasizes physiognomical similarities between representatives of socionic types and uses a visually-based typing approach that is largely criticized among Russian and Ukrainian socionists. Perceptual characteristics are the basis of socionic type, not external similarities. Such similarities often exist, but they are elusive and often misleading.
Your phrase "a person's outer appearance can predict their personality" is definitely not what socionists actually think, but, again, is an impression from the site you mentioned. Virtually all socionists, however, would agree with this statement: "states of mind and manner of self-expression are related to socionic type and hence to certain aspects of personality."
Thanks for your reply, it cleared up a lot. I also found this site http://www.socionics.us/philosophy/misperceptions.shtml that explains alot . Still, I think the article could use some work. Maybe when more people become aware of it, a better article can be written.

Oct. 7th, 2006: I added a section with critical views on Socionics by referring to the critical views section of the article on MBTI, because I believe that the same critique applies to Socionics. However, it was removed by user Niffweed17, who required that I provide "evidence". This type of behavior is typical of people who are into Socionics: they themselves do not provide empirical evidence, but they do require other people to provide evidence if they don't agree with Socionic theory. Socionics is not a science, it's a believe system, very similar to astrology. It assumes the validity of Jung's Psychological Types, their "research" shows all the signs of Confirmation Bias, and all scientific knowledge that might invalidate Socionics is simply ignored or dismissed. I recommend everyone interested in Socionics to read the Critical Views section in the article on MBTI, and them decide for themselves if this critique also applies to Socionics.

check your pms on the16types.info forum. as i mentioned, the critical views section violated WP:NOR. the critical views on the MBTI section, on the other hand, is well referenced and presents a coherent argument. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 16:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


There is a good german article about pseudoscience and pseudoreligion: http://www.socioniko.net/de/articles/sozionik-u-psy.htm. The article can be translated with babelfish for those who can't understand german. --Gronau 08:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

If someone could post references to peer reviewed, scientific journal articles, that would go a long way toward demonstrating the empirical basis of this theory. Right now, it looks like pseudoscience. Or a throwback to old Jungian and psychoanalytic theories of psychology, which is no improvement! Jcbutler 05:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is in poor shape. It fails to recognize that the premise of socionics is significantly different from Carl Jung's original formulation. The similarities are only superficial, yet the the table suggests that socionics is just a different set of terminology for the exact same ideas.--yiliu60 07:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Socionics is both a protoscience and a pseudoscience, and its methods are only philosophically effective at best and pseudo-psychological at the very least. --Rmcnew (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

esoterism dispute

I think if there is an RFC ruling, Rmcnew will comply with it. Tcaudilllg (talk) 05:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Parties to the RFC resolution sign here:

  1. tcaudilllg

I think it is better that you all comply to that "almost got the article deleted because the socionics article was up to the point of the critical esotericism part of the article a proponents edited only page" ruleing that was obviously aimed at the fact that proponents of the theory were trying to claim ownership against anyone critical of socionics theory and not allowing any criticism of socionics theory into the article. Any sort of agreement short of keeping the critical esoteric article where it is is beyond my consideration. Hopefully that answers your question. --Rmcnew (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

And if in any aspect by "RFC ruling" I would bet money on who would win on a cage match in this[15] and win bigtime. --Rmcnew (talk) 20:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Socionics_(esoterism) being merged back into main socionics article

I have just recently began merging information back from the socionics_(esoterism) article into the main socionics article. It is neutral to allow criticism of socionics based upon its esoteric make-up regardless of what some people consider a private or common usage, so I have only brought back article content I have considered to be critical of socionics according to its esoteric make-up, for neutrality sake and also informational purposes. --Rmcnew (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not notable! Tcaudilllg (talk) 17:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It is notable as a criticism. For example, the administrator Mangoe (you know the admin who tried to delete the article) was not very impressed that the socionics article is only edited by "proponents of the socionics theory" only. So, my response to you is that it is notable in that the socionics article as a whole should contain information that is also critical of socionics and is obviously in contradiction with the socionics crowd who are proponents and seek to "convert those who would not otherwise know what they are getting into." It is unneutral to hide this information on the basis that it may prevents ones ability to "convert others to the socionics theory" and yet not tell the whole history behind it. --Rmcnew (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It's undue weight.... compress it to a single paragraph, and provide sources. Tcaudilllg (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

How about I keep the same exact length it is now, rewrite for quality and conveyance and leave the about or over a dozen or so sources that are already there on the article, meaning the article is staying right where it is currently. --Rmcnew (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite it and and we'll see. I think you're running a risk of conflict of interest by writing this yourself, because you're clearly advocating your new religious approach.... Dude, why are you even doing this? You've got a degree in religion, you should be able to just write a book! Contact George Soros or something! Go on Oprah. Then, when you've got 100,000 or so followers, watch with pride as the socionics (esoterism) article is brought back from the dead! (or maybe even renamed to metasocionics!) Tcaudilllg (talk) 21:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you are being sarcastic. Currently my success in socionics is about as successful as this guys Mystery's approach, but that is only because socionics IS EMPIRICALLY USED THE SAME WAY as that guys approach, since it comes from the same source material. --Rmcnew (talk) 20:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

What's with the reverts?

Hey, Tcaudilllg and Rmcnew, why are you editing the article? There are clearly issues to work out. That means we have to stop reverting and start discussing. I don't want to have to request page protection, but I will if the reverting continues. No matter how right you are, edit warring is ultimately unproductive. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I am going to rerevert the section I wrote on socionics criticism one more time and I would appreciate it if it were simply discused and not simply erased frivalously for questionable and impulsive reasons. --Rmcnew (talk) 18:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I am going to add a signifigant amount of sources to the socionics criticism article today. --Rmcnew (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

When you know there's a dispute about content, then re-adding it without establishing clear consensus tends to worsen the dispute. Would you be willing to refrain from that, until we reach some understanding here on the talk page? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

If people would be willing to refrain from deleteing content impulsivelly before things have been appropiatelly discussed I am all for it. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no edit that discussion can be held up for. If you really want an edit, you have to be willing to put it off until after discussion. If you're not willing to do that, nobody can help you. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Quick note that one of the sources showing that esoteric views of energy that are related to chakras and hindu philosophical thinking in eastern socionics theory is in russian on account of being unable to find an appropiate source showing this to be the case in english. --Rmcnew (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Source: http://socionics.org/theory/Default.aspx?load=health.html --Rmcnew (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we talk about this on the page Talk:Socionics/Sources? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

They would have to be added in first. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Nothing first. Discussion, then consensus, then edits. Are you in? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I was talking about the sources page. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I misunderstood. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

A brief note about accidently taking a pseudoscientific stance

I just want to make a brief note in relation to the fact that the the socionics article is now currently undergoing a transformation towards a more neutral stance in regards to both the proponents of socionics theory and its critics, in that stateing that socionics has any sort of scientific verifiability beyond other protosciences (such as accupuncture,chinese medicine,some other forms of alternative medicine and etc.) and personal or subjectively derived empirical based methods that are personal and non-scientific is taking a pseudoscientific stance in regards to socionics and is a categorical misrepresentation of socionics according to it status among other protoscientific theories and philosophies that existed before modern scientific methods. If you ever make the claim that socionics is verifiable according to current scientific methods, it will indeed draw the attention of skeptics who will seek to descredit the theory. So, my advice is that people STOP argueing against the way that I am personally frameing socionics theory in the parts of the article I have written, because that is actually protecting socionics and giving it some viable credit among the critics of the theory even though it seems that there are some editors who detest that socionics is being labeled things with terms such such as protoscientific, dualistic,mystic philosophy,subjective realism,realist philosophy, cosmological based theory, ontological, esoteric, pseudoscientifically empirical, and etc. In this regards PLEASE stop making claims about socionics that frame it as a pseudoscience, readily admit to everyone that socionics may not be testable according to modern scientific standards. It is okay to admit the possibility of it, just don't make claims that socionics is necessarily scientific according to modern standards of scientific testing techniques. --Rmcnew (talk) 20:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Well of course we want to represent all sides, but it's not like the critics will ever be assuaged by our arguments. The same critics of "pseudosciences" are critics of pseudoscience in general. For the record, I disagree with Rick and Lytov, who define "science" in an excessively limited scope. You can bet Augusta did, too.
Your repeated insetions of this false information constitute vandalism and will be removed. Tcaudilllg (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
No. Stop edit warring. I will get the page protected if I have to, and I can guarantee it will be protected in m:The Wrong Version. His edits emphatically do not constitute vandalism and neither do yours. It is on all of our shoulders to maintain a collaborative atmosphere. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

His accusation "Your repeated insetions of this false information" is obviously the logical fallacy known as "begging the question" and really only holds truth if you accept the premise as true. His continued argumentation "I disagree with Rick and Lytov, who define 'science' in an excessively limited scope. You can bet Augusta did, too" is also indicitive of the same sort of "circular logic". Tcaudilligs claims and excuses for the continued eraseing of the article are not justified for the reasons stated and I would appreciate it if he would discontinue to erase valid information from out of the socionics article simply because he does not personally agree with it or is beyond the scope of his own personal knowledge. --Rmcnew (talk) 18:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Rmcnew "If you ever make the claim that socionics is verifiable according to current scientific methods, it will indeed draw the attention of skeptics who will seek to descredit the theory" - so what? RudieBoy (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

"accidently taking a pseudoscientific stance" - really? I thought that Rmcnew's tone was blatantly biased - for example, using the word "obvious" in the sentence "although obvious correlations between socionics theory, occult and esoteric philosophies derived from such groups have caused speculation that this is the case." when he is apparently the only person who thinks so. Also, he states things as facts which are not supported by the article - e.g. he says that mysticism "dominated at least the later half of her life.", when the cited article only mentions that she was "involved in her final years" - also, he says it dominated her life, which the citation does not support either. And...it's also not relevant - he is basically using something that happened after the event as the core part of his argument that Socionics has mystical origins. It is completely misleading. I think that using a hypothesis to 'prove' a link between Socionics (which you claim has no scientific validation) and things you recognise as pseudosciences is not good practice - when scientists says there is a link between two things, they mean that there is at least some tentative empirical data which supports a link - a link should not simply be "These things are connected because I hypothesize that they are". If wikipedia followed this policy, it would be full of even more unverifiable claims than it is now. RudieBoy (talk) 00:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The J/P Issue

I'm wondering why this article chose to reference Ganin's bastardized version of the MBTI lettering system rather than the original version used by the majority of the western world. In the original, the fourth letter always represents the main extroverted trait, whereas Ganin's (which must always be lowercase to prevent confusion) references the primary trait. To fix this would be simple; just change the fourth letter on all introverts and make it uppercase. Extroverts would use the same letter, but also in uppercase. 71.196.216.19 20:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Socionic types are not equivalent to MBTI types. In particular, the socionic elements do not correspond to the MBTI traits, even though the same names are used sometimes. (See [16]) Thehotelambush 00:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

But then, if the Socionic types aren't equivalent to MBTI types, shouldn't the column showing which MBTI type they relate to be removed? Otherwise, it's just confusing. For instance, according to Myers-Briggs, an INFJ has dominant Ni and auxiliary Fe. Here, dominant Ni and auxiliary Fe are shown to correspond to INFp under the MBTI column. So either the information in the MBTI column is wrong and should be corrected, or MBTI column doesn't relate to Socionics and should be removed. Ajwenger 02:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, how about fix this, and create another column that has the socionics type abbreviation? I'm still not sure what the difference between Socionics types and MBTI types are due to this problem. 203.14.53.23 07:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to switch this over to standard usage. jbolden1517Talk 19:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
What is "standard usage?" There is no consensus among socionists as to the relationship between MBTI and socionics types. The different notations are recorded to emphasize that MBTI and socionics do not mean the same thing. I think they are their inclusion is confusing, and would support getting rid of them. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 06:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
INFj (Socionics) = INFJ (MBTI)

Compare the type descriptions! MBTI just mixed up the functions but the descriptions are almost equivalent for all types. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.222.188.203 (talk) 10:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The model takes precedence over the functions. It is the responsibility of socionists to make their descriptions fit Model A. FiNe yields only one personality base, and that's the INFP one under MBTI.
...The Jung Type Indicator has gained prominence. It's a test for the types under Jung's criterion and has full correspondence with socionics: an INTJ under the JTI is a socionics LII. Let's take out MBTI and put in the Jung Type Indicator instead. Tcaudilllg (talk) 07:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

adding of neutrality tag to esoteric article

Rudieboy has just recently added a neutrality tag to the esoteric article as an attempt to disallow unneutral proponents of socionics theory from removing the article and causeing further neutrality disputes where certain information is chased out of the article and the administration threatens to delete all the socionics article on account of the unneutral standpoints of proponents. It is neutral point of view to allow information critical of socionics theory according to its esoteric developement into the article and it is unneutral to make movements to remove the information. Thank you for your cooperation. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You are incorrect when you say "It is neutral point of view to allow information critical of socionics theory according to its esoteric developement into the article and it is unneutral to make movements to remove the information" - it is possible to be biased or neutral in either case. You seem to be letting your views cloud your claimed neutral stance - whatever you write on wikipedia should be neutral even if you disagree with it. RudieBoy (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I personally disagree with the mystical and esoteric stance, and yet I talk about it as though I do. Again, my opposition is to the fact that there are people who mistakenly think that "hiding" this information is essential to the advancement of socionics, but I disagree. I think "telling the truth about socionics" and then "turning socionics into a non-speculative and valid social science" is the best thing for socionics to advance. That is my stance. --Rmcnew (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

If the above is Rmcnew...and yet you have made diagrams which showed that Socionics is 'obviously' (in your view) linked to the zodiac?RudieBoy (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, socionics is linked to the western zodiac and all its signs. That is because it was once considered scientific to use the zodiac, its signs, the elements, and 360 degree circles to empirically develop science. These approaches are now considered protoscientific and pesudoscientific. Socionics is based on these same sort of empirical methods, the usage of a 360 degree circle and through the tattwas, lines up exactly with the zodiac.

However, this doesn't mean I am a non-proponent to socionics theory. I believe it is better to tell the truth, than do work to make socionics into a legitimate "social science" with field tested methods. That means actually doing physical work and showing how socionics connects with the development of social skills. --Rmcnew (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Type chart and MBTI correlatives

Before I edited this article, the type chart mixed up the introverted type codes under "Four-letter name" (the Socionics version of the name). For instance INTp was accidentally labeled INTj and vice versa, and so on with the rest of the introverted types. You can see the correct type code by looking at their articles (i.e. ILI). Also, the MBTI code correlatives for the introverted types have reversed J/P. For instance, INTp is actually correlative with INTJ. This is because those two types have the same preferred processes order (Ni/Te/Fi/Se). I just thought I should explain my recent edits. I believe the chart is correct now. --Mac OS X 01:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. jbolden1517Talk 04:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

RFC

OK it looks like we are edit waring here. Lets just make a list of options (please sign 1). Add new options if you need them.

  • I believe the MBTI names should match the socionics name (ISFJ = ISFj)
  • I believe the MBTI names should be the opposite of the socionics name for introverts and match for extraverts (ISFj=ISFP)
  1. jbolden1517Talk 04:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  2. Mac OS X 00:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  3. Tcaudilllg (talk) 03:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I believe that MBTI types and functions do not correspond to socionics types and functions, and therefore support the removal of the MBTI names.
  1. Powpowpowpowpowpow (talk) 03:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  2. 70.162.119.140 (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  3. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 01:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  4. RudieBoy (talk) 00:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I think that the non-MBTI correlation side should have to present a credible source to sustain their objection. Actually I'm thinking of asking an independent arbitrator to step in, with respect to ALL of this. Tcaudilllg (talk) 03:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Socionics uses the same Jungian psychology, specifically function-attitudes, that MBTI uses. The only difference being that Socionics states that if you are dominant T or F then you are Judging and if you are dominant S or N then you are Perceiving; while MBTI states that your outward, or extraverted, function determines your J/P -- so a person with dominant or secondary Te or Fe would be J, while a dominant or secondary Se or Ne would be P. You can argue until you're blue in the face which one is more accurate, but the fact remains that they are using the same essential blueprint and each type corresponds because they have the same function order -- for instance ENTP and ENTp are both Ne/Ti/Fe/Si while INTP and INTj are both Ti/Ne/Si/Fe. This article from Socionics.org shows that even they believe they are correlative. --Mac OS X 21:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The issue is controversial among socionics circles and deserves a balanced and neutral treatment, not an endorsement that they do indeed correlate. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 01:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is another article from Socionics.com that has a handy chart just like the one in question. It doesn't state the MBTI type code, but the chart is meant to find a correspondence between different systems. As you can see from the chart, for example, INTj is Ti/Ne in Socionics. This combination in MBTI is INTP. This chart is meant for you to look up Ti/Ne and see that INTj is correlative to INTP. The article states:

The original MBTI abbreviation was not included in the table for a very specific reason - to avoid spreading JP/jp confusion further: If a person knows very little about Type, i.e. only the MBTI acronym (i.e. from tests), then it is most likely that they would use the acronym from 'S-Type' column, since it looks more familiar. This should work. If however a person already knows and concerned about MBTI Type dynamics, then they should and possibly would use the 'Fn' column to find corresponding S-Type. Hopefully this table would answer the MBTI/Socionics conversion questions for many.

--Mac OS X 22:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I should indicate that it actually doesn't matter if the meaning is reversed or they are not connected. Either way the table needs to have lots of data. WP:Jargon requires jargon to be explained. In the English speaking community terms like INFP are by the vast majority of reliable sources defined in terms of Myers Briggs. If words are going to be used in a non standard way (i.e. the socionics way) that needs to be explicit under Wikipedia:Fringe theories. In other words the socionics article must indicate that it is using INFP in a way rejected by the majority of RSes. It must do so clearly. Otherwise it has to use it in a way consistent with Myers Briggs. The reversal and the lower casing makes this (IMHO) explicit enough to meet the guidelines. This debate is focusing on socionics but in a broader sense this isn't fundamentally a socionics issue. jbolden1517Talk 00:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there agreement that the JTI type correspond precisely with the socionics types? Tcaudilllg (talk) 02:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

ongoing mcnew issues

are we ready collectively to say that rmcnew's views about the inclusion of esoteric and mystical components of socionics are completely in opposition to everyone else's? my opinion is that this seems to be the case. i would propose that if others agree that rmcnew's views are essentially fringe viewpoints, that a resolution be passed calling for rmcnew to be barred from editing the page. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 07:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

As a person who has experienced the pain of ostracism before, I will not be party to this endeavor. I empathize with rmcnew and understand what it must be like to not be believed... but at the end of the day this all boils down to baseless accusations of conspiracy. I think he's tarnishing his reputation and ruining for himself his opportunities to teach people about a valid historical subject.
There is no conspiracy. There couldn't be because there are no conspiratorially-minded people working in socionics. (I mean hey, it would be possible but there just aren't enough!) If rmcnew really wants to help the cause of socionics, a much better way to do it would be by asking how exactly his functions are processing information such that they produce conspiratorial illusions. Tcaudilllg (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
i am not accusing mcnew of any conspiracy; that has nothing to do with what i said. what i did state is that i believe that his views are essentially fringe viewpoints on the development of socionics, and that nobody else seems to agree with him on the point of including esoteric and mystical components in this article, and that if others share this perception as well, we should take action and move on. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 20:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I may not have been explicit enough. I was noting that he was accusing others of conspiracy without proof.
But per the admin's suggestion, I'm shutting up now. Tcaudilllg (talk) 23:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
ah, i see. sorry, i should have caught that. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Are we all in sync that both Rick Dulong and Dmitri Lytov have talked about the esoteric development of socionics?

Rick Dulong calls socionics a protoscience and talks about how chakras were used by both Ausura Augusta and also currently, and Dmitri Lytov has stated that there were times in the development of socionics theory that there has been insurgences where empirical methods were replaced by esoteric and mystical methods. This is also my view of socionics theory. If this is a minority fringe view, than I doubt it would ever have become an issue. It is actually the majorities view in the socionics world that chakras and esoteric methods have been used in socionics theory. Passive and vague assertions while not looking deep enough into things with the hope that it would remove true assertions by saying things like "rmcnew has an opposite view to everyone elses" and saying that the sources showing socionics to be esoteric are "having nothing to do with socionics theory" when say that the source article in question is about comparisons between chakras and the socionic functions. That just isn't at all an impressive. It looks underhanded. What do you have to hide by repressing the truth about socionics theory?

In regards to Niffweed's assertions above his non-neutral bias to silence any information exposing that socionics is a protoscience is unwarranted and shows that he does not have the right to say who should and should not be editing wikipedia articles, and in fact should bring into question his own right to edit wikipedia articles (or atleast to edit the esoteric or mystic portion) in that he lacks the intellectual capacity and tolerance to allow the representation of legitimate viewpoints within socionics theory in referring to this viewpoint as fringe, when it is the same viewpoint as those who are considered authoritative. --Rmcnew (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I should also note that niffweed's assertion that rmcnew should be barred "for having an opinion different than everyone else's" isn't substantiated, because my viewpoint has been distorted off and on with claims of a certain "conspiracy". I don't believe that there is a conspiracy in socionics theory. I do know that socionics is a protoscience, uses chakras and psychic energy in the initial theory by Ausura Augusta, Kepimsky, and that it has been established by many sources that this is the case that mysticism and esotericism still exists yet as an opposing viewpoint to an empirical viewpoint that also exists. It is the resistance to acknowledgeing the mystical and esoteric viewpoint that I am opposed to. I am personally for the empirical non-speculative approach with socionics theory, as I believe that is what is required for it to advance. --Rmcnew (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

no, we are clearly not "in sync" on this. the sources you have linked universally fail to support this idea, in my personal judgment, views which i have described in somewhat more detail and in reference to the arguments themselves (as opposed to the rest of your ad hominem attacks and things like that, which i will continue to ignore) on the sources page. responding to a different point, i have no objection to the idea that socionics might be classified as a protoscience; if i believe the sources you used to this end illegitimate, it was due to their inadequacy as sources and not due to the viewpoint that they promote socionics as a protoscience (as in the wikisocion article), or due to the fact that they were being used to support other, unrelated points which they do not substantiate. finally, my assertion that you should be barred reflects my personal belief that others will agree that your views are rather a fringe viewpoint, and no objective measurement; indeed, if others do not end up agreeing with this point of view, then i will gladly concede the point and take no further role in any changes to be made to the page. so far, however, out of the only four or so people involved in the discussion, only you have supported the idea that socionics has a verifiable esoteric basis that should be referenced in the article. since we seem to disagree quite fundamentally on the nature of whether or not the sources do support this claim, there is little else on the matter that i can reasonably discuss with you. please note that i don't currently believe there exists a clear consensus that your views are a fringe viewpoint and should be excised; rather, i merely predict that there will be, and until such time as that consensus does appear to exist, i don't see what action i or others would reasonably take. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 01:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Rmcnew, what I find ironic is that DeLong almost certainly avoided commenting on my ideas to avoid exactly this kind of mis-attribution of statements on his part, and yet here he elevates you and for that probably feels (inappropriately) that he was justified in avoiding interaction with me. (a contradiction in terms) But if I've learned anything about DeLong, it's that he has no concrete idea of who he is or how or why other people behave as they do. (which is why he sought out socionics).
This section seems to me the only real issue at this point. And it seems to me a matter, quite frankly, of blocking people who put in these unsubstantiated rumors from editing the page. I think in lieu of formal statements by Lytov and DeLong in support of your position, that your claims are WP:OR. There is clearly a consensus and it prohibits you from expressing your position here.

If you cannot edit this page without inserting your claims, then I think you should be blocked. Tcaudilllg (talk) 13:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I find it quite interesting that tcaud brings up WP:OR in relation to showing that Ausura Augusta and socionics is esoteric based, uses chakras in the theory, and that Kepimsky's theory in information metabolism is referring to psychic energy that takes place between chakras and tattwas. It is even more interesting to consider that when one looks at the whole socionics article there are plenty of other things that can be considered WP:OR. Now, obviously the socionics article is going to be rewritten. Is the information in certain sections that are not written by me that could be considered WP:OR going to be included in the rewrite or taken out totally? How come just the esoteric article is being targeted as WP:OR by tcaud? Well, apparently tcaud should probably have a good look at the rest of the socionics article for WP:OR standpoints and consider them for a rewrite before making these sort of assertions for one small portion of the article, when the whole article itself is full of origional research claims. That is my suggestion at least.

I don't have an issue with what niffweed said, but I do have an issue with denying the obvious when it comes to telling the truth about socionics theory.

I am for a rewrite of the esoteric section of the article for neutrality purposes. --Rmcnew (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

--Rmcnew (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Block 'em. I'm for it. Tcaudilllg (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that taking out all of the suspected WP:OR would signifigantly reduce the socionics article as a whole. It would be a bare bones rewrite almost. Would you be willing to personally volunteer to do that much rewritting? --Rmcnew (talk) 19:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

There is consensus that you are so out of touch with reality that your judgment is impaired. I don't think you have anything to offer at this point. Tcaudilllg (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

So, you are saying that signifigant portions of the article itself does not contain WP:OR? I think that someone with good and fair judgement would consider that there is alot of origional research throughout the whole socionics article that should be addressed during the collborative rewrite. It surprises me that you don't seem to want to collaborate on a group rewite to correct the origional research issue. Unless I am wrong on your motive. --Rmcnew (talk) 19:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I have offered no original research, only an explanation of information metabolism in a way that I believe is intelligible. You are confusing original research for copy editing. Tcaudilllg (talk) 19:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not something is copy edited has nothing to do with whether or not the material is origional research, so there is no confusion about it. Only that the whole field of socionics as it is known in english was founded on the premise of origional research and russian source articles. For example, I am pretty sure that someone could viably copy-edit include into the socionics article a section written by ausura augusta herself that describes how she uses the socionics functions in relation to information metabolism, but if you post an actual statement in english from a russian socionists who blatently uses chakras with socionics and 20 links that show beyond a shadow of a doubt that esoteric view of psychic energy and chakras are CURRENTLY a part of socionics theory, that suddenly becomes origional research. I don't buy that one bit. Especially when there are large portions of the socionics article that could also be arguably origional research, and that fact was completely avoided in the assertion of the origional research claim and in relation to the pending rewrite of the whole article done collaborativelly. --Rmcnew (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well Olga's work concerns the two-type theory and it's very important that people know about the phenomena!! Do you or do you not want a world where a majority of people are satisfied with their jobs? This article is the most important on Wikipedia because it's apparently the only way to get attention to the two-type theory. So many qualified professionals have been turned off by the single-type paradigm where all ISFPs are brilliant artists and all ENTJs are superb generals that no one pays attention to the coming redemption of the concept! No one pays attention to the talent revolution that make of the entrepreneur a servant to their employees, where people work only at the jobs they are good at and excel in! What else can resurrect our faltered economy? Perhaps it will recover on its own... but by the talent revolution it could recover much, much faster.
Additionally it can be shown that had trait theories been given more weight by lawmakers, the economy would most likely never have faltered. Tcaudilllg (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

responding to a couple of brief points: much of the article, as mcnew stated, should be rewritten, to avoid concerns about OR. however, there are plenty of viable, legitimate sources to reference most of the material in the article, even the speculative hypotheses. obviously, however, the process of revising the article cannot proceed until this dispute is worked out. there are, as i have emphasized continually, no acceptable attributable sources for the esoteric claims being referenced. i do not believe that rmcnew's suggestion that he would like the esoteric section to be neutrally rewritten acknowledges the magnitude of the disagreement over the section; the only "rewrite" that i would find appropriate given the sources available is that the esoteric ideas are a rather isolated hypothesis unrelated to mainstream practice of socionics, ie by olga and others, which i suspect is a highly different viewpoint from what rmcnew might consider as "neutral." if i'm wrong about that, by all means let me know so that this mess can be worked out. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Rmcnew is insane. I've known this for a long time. I worked with him because I wanted to understand his point of view, how he works. I'd like to continue doing that but he has shown himself willing to jeopardize even mutually held aspirations of our progress. He betrays even his friends. Rmcnew, you say whatever you want. You are so deluded as to be completely out of touch with reality. Some people, like CNN's Roland Martin, think you're hilarious. Quite frankly you scare me because I know history and I know how peaceful times become living hells. It's people like you who, out of lust for absolute power, scheme and deceive to try to make people follow your philosophy. I was testing you, Reuben. I was testing you the whole time. You failed. Tcaudilllg (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Note to tcaud:

1.) Stop whining and being paranoid that you are a target of some sort. You are not. 2.) Stop emphasizing how you have always intended to backstab me. It is annoying. 3.) You are definatelly not going to be saveing your own skin by backstabbing me. 4.) I knew you were against me all along. It was obvious. 5.) Start collaborating on something productive, for example, a collaborative rewrite. 6.) Roland Martin - http://www.booksandcollectibles.com.au/dump/AUTHORS_ARTISTS/books-0005/6214.html --Rmcnew (talk) 18:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


Note to Niffweed:

verifiable socionics source stating that information metabolism as descended from Ausura Augusta has lead to aptitude towards certain esoteric practices

I found this socionics article source earlier today concerning socionics and analytical psychology:

Analytical Psychology Kameneva I.P. Psychical Energy: Symbols and Metamorphoses

C.G.Jung's ideas on psychical energy are considered in the context of his psychoanalytical experience set forth in his work Libido, Its Metamorphoses and Symbols. Symbols of psychical energy indicate the direction of its movement from the mother to other objects and images, which in general reminds dynamics of Kundalini energy in Tantra Yoga. In A.Augustinavichiute's model the scheme of informational metabolism of each type determines specifics of its energetic potential and in separate cases also aptitude towards certain esoteric practices. Key words: symbols, consciousness, unconscious, archetypes, psychical energy (libido), system of Chakras, psychical functions, informational metabolism, energetic metabolism, mental loop, vital loop, socionics.

Source: http://www.socionics.ibc.com.ua/ejpsy/psy_0612.html

Who cares? It's not notable.
I think we need input from an analytical psychologist, however. A respected one, because even among metaphysicians there are fringes. Tcaudilllg (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
do you know where i can look at the content of that article? (a translation is fine). until you can look at the article itself, you have no idea whether it's a hypothesized set of correlations (i expect that it is) or something more akin to what you're suggesting. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 01:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that somewhere on the internet you could find the article, in russian. A couple of the articles are made available that way. You have to find the russian abstract to see if the article would be available. There is usually a link to it from the abstract. I think there is a way to request articles, too. --Rmcnew (talk) 22:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

We really shouldn't even go there. There is no such thing as aptitude towards esoteric practices because it's all bunk! Ever watched Mind Freak?
McNew is flatly wrong. This is a science article about concepts put forwards by professional, licensed scientists. Socionics is not about mysticism and it is not about esoterism. Augusta did not seek to affirm any sort of mystic knowledge: it is evident from her letters, which are available on socioniko, that she was an imminently rational person. Did she get into mysticism later in life? Maybe, lots of people do. A lot of people also get religion at midlife; but just as Jung did -- as all respectable professionals must -- they continue to draw a fine line between their feelings and their recommendations and positions as professionals. Tcaudilllg (talk) 01:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
the point i'm trying to verify by looking into that article is, is it a retrodictive hypothesis about relationships between socionics and chakras/esoteric subjects, or is it arguing that aushra had anything to say about them? mcnew seems to be suggesting the latter, whereas i think that seems unlikely, but i have no idea how he would know that, or how you would know anything about the article without having read it (assuming of course, that you both haven't). i think the source of the article is fine since it comes from IIS; how much more reliable are you going to get, really? Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The article itself should rightly raise flags and cause anyone willing to analyze the source to ask questions as to why these things are being emphasized in the first place. Much like in investigative journalism. There is a premise in the article that came from somewhere. --Rmcnew (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I know because of the context. I also know that if there were a real conspiracy, it wouldn't still be published. ;) I know this: Rmcnew has not read that article, because he has no access to it. The only people in the community who could get access to it are Olga, Rick, and Lytov, am I right? It's not like rmcnew has access to it, or he would quote directly from the article, wouldn't he?
rmcnew could lead us around a horse chase like this for months, if not years. It's a total waste of time. Tcaudilllg (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Note to tcaud: there is no conspiracy in socionics theory because the esoteric methods are obvious and out in the open. The esoteric method compares psychic energy, information metabolism, chakras, and the information elements between each other. You seem to be the only one here currently stating that there is a conspiracy. There is no conspiracy to my knowledge. You also have a grossly inaccurate view of what is actually being argued by me and some others --Rmcnew (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

When you guys are fully ready to acknowledge neutrally other viewpoints that you yourself may not fully agree with, it would be appreciated that you could put your personal biases aside and go back to the sources page and help to constructively write a neutrally stated rewrite of the esoteric article in socionics theory, as it is clearly substantiated that chakras and other esoteric methods are present as a legitimate viewpoint in socionics theory, and that this esoteric viewpoint and methodology descended from the methods of the founder ausura augusta in relation to information metabolism. --Rmcnew (talk) 18:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

rmcnew, it really is not acceptable that you take this article which you haven't read and use its abstract to justify your point. the reason is because you have no idea (in fact, i strongly suspect) that the article does NOT say what you think it says. your argument is hearsay. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 08:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as the article abstract is concerned, it is extremely obvious what the article is about. That is why they make abstracts. An abstract is a summary of the basic points of the article. Now, instead of making specific claims that are directed towards individuals and making futile ad hominem attacks on the administrative complaint board in an unneutral attempt to force your own personal viewpoint on others or to silence other viewpoints, you could go do something constructive such as helping to find an actual copy of the article, so the wikipedia page can be rewritten accordingly to viable sources.

As far as your claim that the article may not say what I think it says, I am going by the abstract. The abstract makes a clear claim that esoteric methods have come from ausura augusta's usage of information metabolism. Now, I will repeat again. Instead of making ad hominem person attacks on what you think other people are saying, instead why not just go and do something constructive like look for the actual text of the article, so the wikipedia article can be rewritten accordingly. Continueing to make these ad hominem attacks is more likely to backfire on you. --Rmcnew (talk) 00:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Informational approach of the Kiev socionics school (synergetics) proven to be based on hermetic principles

There is a book by EJ Applewhite called "cosmic fishing" which described Fullers theory of synergetics. The following comes from a book excerpt, where questions are asked on the author of a book on synergetics. It is claimed that synergetics as a theory is rooted in hermeticism.

cosmic fishing book critique of fuller's work

" Trimtab: Just as Fuller is hard to describe, Synergetics is hard to describe. Just what kind of book is it?

EJA: Synergetics is a book without genre. The Library of Congress catalogs it succinctly under "1. System theory. 2. Thought and thinking. 3. Mathematics - Philosophy." The dilemma of this book is that it attempts to combine science and poetry and philosophy in a single work and in the very act of combining three such elements — normally considered so disparate in our culture — it is impossible to appeal to any one of the disciplines without risk of grave offense to the other two.

I know that the whole structure of Fuller's cosmos is a poetic one of vast harmony and subtlety. If the book is nothing else, it is one of the most complex literary and pattern metaphors of the age. It is a rare and wonderful vision of a geometry of conceptuality: how to start from a new place — independent of Euclid, Descartes, and Leibniz, independent of size, independent of time. . . This book expresses a kind of geometry and a method of epistemology that is probably original in our civilization; if that is so, its very format means that academic recognition will be hard to come by ...

For me, the chief satisfaction of the book's publication was at last being able to share the whole elaborate design with others — thought at the price of having robbed Fuller perhaps of a certain privacy. His geometry remained difficult, esoteric — even hermetic — but it was no longer inaccessible, no longer embedded in untranscribed tapes and scrawls on the backs of envelopes. I had felt up until this time artists and scientists could be excused for not listening to Fuller; now if they chose to ignore him, it would be on their conscience, not his. Nor mine. -- http://www.bfi.org/our_programs/bfi_community/the_green_design_institute --Rmcnew (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Fuller and the Qaballa

"The V.E. center is primal "emptiness." It is a mathematical anomaly where the normal laws of the space/time continuum break down. It is not a symbol of ultimate order. It looks like a very rational, orderly system, but it is ultimately irrational. It defies logic. V.E. is the breeder of wave-particle duality, the uncertainty principle, and non-locality at the quantum level. It is a zone of neutral resonance where waves can pass through waves without interference, according to Fuller. Yet, it never physically exists as a structure, since nature abhors a vacuum. In quantum mechanics a system can never have an energy of exactly zero. There is no such thing as absolute emptiness. However, the minimal motion of the ground state is called zero point energy, or zero point motion. Cosmic zero exists, paradoxically, in the realm of the psyche (our conceptualization) and in quantum reality in the atomic nucleus expressed as force. It is the form of formlessness, the root metaphor. It also forms the roots of the cosmic Tree of Life, since there is a fine-to-non-existent line between organic and inorganic matter on the quantum scale. Physics is the patterns of organic energy, all of which are dynamic, alive. Mass is energy, so the subatomic world is always restlessly in motion. Inert matter is full of motion when we look closely at it . The activity of matter is its essence. Vector Equilibrium emanates/condenses from a center in twelve fundamental directions. This emergent energy moves outward through space/time in the form of a cuboctahedron, alternating with its mathematical reciprocal, an octahedron-within-a-cube. It is a truncated cube with 50 symmetrically positioned topological features. Vector Equilibrium has the same surface area as a sphere, yet contains no volume, i.e. it contains "nothing." The Vector Equilibrium system has 12 vertices, 8 triangular faces, 24 edges, and 32 planes. It is omnidirectional equilibrium, symbolically and physically speaking. As such, it is a perfect symbol for "holding the tension of the opposites," or "uniting the opposites." Yet, it is more than a metaphor. It is an archetypal image which bridges the macrocosm with the microcosm. It is a living example of the Hermetic Axiom, "As Above, So Below," uniting spiritual and literal reality. V.E. makes it possible to make conceptual models of other dimensions (hyperspace), mathematically and mystically. In the V.E. figure, equilibrium between positive and negative is zero. It is the equalization of the forces of push/pull, radiation/gravitation, or tension/compression. Fuller alleged it" represents the limits of the mind's ability to conceptualize 'in'." For Fuller, all of space/time is undergird with a pre-geometric matrix, which is an infinite field of vector equilibria. An entire universe can be seeded from one V.E., self-generating to fill all space/time. There may be no ultimate physical building-block of matter, but there is one single entity that undergirds and composes everything in the universe, according to Fuller. The basic element of the universe is dynamic patterns." http://sourceress.tripod.com/

More Proof That Socionics Has a Heavy Hermetic Influence Through Synergetics, or Otherwise

There were two men involved with Synergetics and Cybernetics research. Hermann Haken and Buckminster Fuller. It should be noted that both men involved themselves with cybernetics and synergetics, as Dmitri Lytov claims that this philosophical theory has had an influence on socionics through the socionics school in Kiev. In any case, I found this weblink below to demonstrate the different emphases they had on the theory.

I call this third option synergetic evolution, recalling Buckminster Fuller’s emphasis on synergy (wholes greater than the sum of their parts). Physicist Hermann Haken explored synergetics as the dynamic of self-organizing complex systems. - http://zanngill.com/2dd.html

To complement the above statement from the link, I give these two following weblinks:

The world view of Hermetic philosophy - The hermetic world view can be integrated on a content level. However, instead of aiming at integrating duality by „remembrance“, S.T. instead aims at generating new states of organization as they have never existed before. Existence as a whole is in a continuous process of development towards unknown open „ends“. The polarity of mechanism on the one hand (God as clock-maker, everything is static) and vitalism on the other (causation can`t be accounted for in physical terms; teleology) has been transcended. - http://www.synergetic-therapy.com/Introduction/Introduction.html
By striving for comprehensivity, synergetics gives its student a means to translate inputs and discoveries from many walks of life into an efficient storage and retrieval system. In this sense, it links up with the memory arts as passed down through the hermetic tradition, is a kind of computer programming language. - http://www.grunch.net/synergetics/synintro.html

And these further two statements from Dmitri Lyton and Alexander Bukalov:

Alexander Bukalov - Physics of Consciousness Boukalov A.V. Conscience and the Universe - It is shown that the universal vacuum if viewed as a conglomerate of relativist fields may be described as a giant computing system that controls movement of micro-particles and macro-bodies (planets, stars, etc.) Alike physical processes run in semiconductor crystals of modern computers used for construction of artificial intelligence systems. As an analogue of macro-computer, the Universe in total inevitably possesses attributes of consciousness and intelligence, and its particular subsystems interact with human consciousness and find their interpretation within the framework of religious systems and beliefs. Key words: consciousness, physical vacuum, computer, computations, religion. --Rmcnew (talk) 01:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC) http://www.socionics.ibc.com.ua/ejpsy/psy_0412.html#top http://www.socionics.ibc.com.ua/ejpsy/psy_0412.html#top
Dmitri Lytov - “Informational approach” (Alexander Bukalov, Olga Karpenko, Vladimir Ermak and others, and on the other hand - the alleged “Antisocionics” of Shiyan). Its adherents refer to socionics types as “types of information metabolism.” Moreover, they consider this concept not only applicable to the human psyche, but – in a more global sense – to “information” in general. It is significant that these ideas are extremely similar to some eccentric views, but also to synergetics (the theory of self-organizing systems), having recently sprouted from the depths of cybernetics. Unfortunately, very little is known scientifically about the relation of socionics with synergetics and, in a broader sense, with cybernetics. There is also the matter that the Kiev international institute of socionics is highly sympathetic to a number of esoteric approaches, rejected by the scientific world. http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/articles/24685-information-metabolism-dmitri-lytov.html

Bukalov, founder of the Kiev socionics school, discusses hermetic cosmological principles

The following abstract by Bukalov is blatant hermeticism and can be found in the kybalion. He is describing the "universal vacuum" as a "giant computer", and then discusses "macro-bodies" and "micro-bodies". It is even emphasized in the abstract that these represent "stars and planets". These are clear concepts from the kybalion, especially the "Law of the All" and the "Law of correspondance". He is giving a clear description of Microcosmic and Macrocosmic concepts as they are represented "Above and Below" in relationship to "the great mind of the universe." This is absurdly apparent upon investigation.

http://www.socionics.ibc.com.ua/ejpsy/psy_0412.html#top

Physics of Consciousness Boukalov A.V. Conscience and the Universe

It is shown that the universal vacuum if viewed as a conglomerate of relativist fields may be described as a giant computing system that controls movement of micro-particles and macro-bodies (planets, stars, etc.) Alike physical processes run in semiconductor crystals of modern computers used for construction of artificial intelligence systems. As an analogue of macro-computer, the Universe in total inevitably possesses attributes of consciousness and intelligence, and its particular subsystems interact with human consciousness and find their interpretation within the framework of religious systems and beliefs. Key words: consciousness, physical vacuum, computer, computations, religion. --Rmcnew (talk) 01:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Now, there is a position where some people are claiming that socionics has no ties to occult or esoteric philosophies. If that were true, then why are hermetic principles found in an abstract (regardless of the presence of an actual article text) at all? Furthermore, this is an abstract from a verifiable article that is paper published in russian to socionists. Why was an article concerning hermetic philosophy ever published in a socionist journal? Answer that! --Rmcnew (talk) 01:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

because the russian socionics community is ILE, and welcomes all manner of hypotheses. and discussing these hypotheses is absoltuely appropriate. what is absolutely inappropriate and unverified is your claim that augusta had any esoteric sources in mind when constructing the theory. i have continued to state this and you have not budged an inch from it. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 04:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Way to go Niffweed. :) Excellent comeback. Tcaudilllg (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

This is what I keep telling you and I think that you keep ignoring. Socionics is a protoscience. Usages of tatwas, chakras, psychic energy, and study of facial features according to a 360 degree circle was once considered scientific. The science was eventually encapsulated into a philosophy called "hermeticism", and this philosophy not only formed all branches of science as everyone knew it, it also shaped religion and belief systems. Socionics is derived from hermeticism, has esoteric roots and it is based on this same philosophy that once formed universally recognized scientific methods. This is why much of the same philosophy is still as of yet being discussed by socionists. Now Bukalov himself was the founder of an entire socionics school, and yet he himself talks about thing that are blatantly hermetic. That is not a hypothesis as you claim, it is an observable empirical fact and it is going right over your head. It is appropriate to claim that augusta may have believed her methods to be scientific, but they could have really been esoteric or mystic in light of the protoscientific nature of socionics. Especially when you add tattwas, chakras, and understandings of psychic energy into the mix. All those were once considered scientific, but also in other ways considered mystic and esoteric as well. They were used both ways.

I am going to make an assertion here, and that it is actually you and many others who have the unsubstantiated hypothesis that socionics does not have these ties to esoteric or protoscientific systems that once formed legitimate science, but now may be considered pseudoscience when presented as a science. The ties are completely and utterly substantiated. What is unsubstantiated is to refuse to acknowledge that these ties do exist. I don't understand how people can be that oblivious to these sort of things when the evidence and verifiable source articles from legitimate and official socionic authors that represent organized socionic schools are right in front of you and saying the same exact things as I have been saying. --Rmcnew (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, I still want all of you to help rewrite the section that talks about esotericism in socionics in a way that is reasonable. Help state it neutrally, in a way that we all agree with. We have to work together on this to help state these things neutrally, even against what we all personally believe or how we want socionics to appear to others. That is what neutrality is about, telling the truth about all sides according to how those sides see it. --Rmcnew (talk) 18:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

You can claim whatever. But the fact is, you have no credibility. Tcaudilllg (talk) 18:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Tcaudilllg, this is not about me or you, it is about the socionics subject in question and the source abstract from the founder of socionics institute in Kiev, Alexander Bukalov and his apparent statement where he discusses cosmological issues that originated from hermetic philosophy. Please refrain from making ad hominem personal attacks and ensuing circular logic, it interferes with the quality of discussion. Thanks. --Rmcnew (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that these articles from "Psychology and Socionics of Interpersonal Relationships" are necessarily valid - I do not know the extent to which these articles are peer reviewed (if indeed they are), and the credibility of many of these peers is questionable. I know that in the case of Olga Tangemann (whom Rmcnew quotes from on the Socionics page that she is not a prolific Socionist of high repute - as far as I can tell, she is an internet Socionist who learned the subject and then added her own ideas to create her "Butterfly Model of a Human Psyche". I get the impression that she simply submitted her article to the journal and it was summarily published without fuss. Articles in credible journals generally take at least a few months to get published - and I doubt that the articles in this journal are heavily scrutinized and followed up with meticulous critiques. I rather think indeed that many of these 'socionists' live in a vacuum and are allowed to publish whatever it is they want without much basis in reality. However, in defence of the journal, it is refreshing to see that the particular edition with the aforementioned Boukalov article also has a poem in it. RudieBoy (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Since the above statement above is apparently intended to (ad hominem) attack the credibility of the Kiev socionics school, the credibility of the socionics journal published by Alexander Bukalov, and also in retaliation to the (hermetic philosophy) article that has been found to have intentionally been placed in the journal by Alexander Bukalov, here is a statement by Dmitri Lytov concerning Alexander Bukalov's credibility ---
"So, Augusta created a framework of socionics. But it needed a reform. The necessity of a reform became obvious in the last years of perestroika (1989 – 1991). Although official psychology was still under strong influence of the official ideology, more and more Western psychological books came to Russia, were translated and published. In the beginning, there were only few authors – Eric Berne, Sigmund Freud, Erich Fromm, Carl Jaspers. But from now on socionics had to compete with other trends in psychology, because Soviet (and later post-Soviet) psychology became pluralistic. Two researchers from Kiev, Victor Gulenko and Alexander Bukalov, reformed socionics: they defined its subject and methodology, and created its terminology, which is used until now. Due to their activity, Kiev (Ukraine) became an “informal capital” of the socionics." http://www.psihologia.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1503&sid=f39af7defe85e5b10864a55b2aac7381 --Rmcnew (talk) 22:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
“Informational approach” (Alexander Bukalov, Olga Karpenko, Vladimir Ermak and others, and on the other hand - the alleged “Antisocionics” of Shiyan). Its adherents refer to socionics types as “types of information metabolism.” Moreover, they consider this concept not only applicable to the human psyche, but – in a more global sense – to “information” in general. It is significant that these ideas are extremely similar to some eccentric views, but also to synergetics (the theory of self-organizing systems), having recently sprouted from the depths of cybernetics. Unfortunately, very little is known scientifically about the relation of socionics with synergetics and, in a broader sense, with cybernetics. There is also the matter that the Kiev international institute of socionics is highly sympathetic to a number of esoteric approaches, rejected by the scientific world. http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/articles/24685-information-metabolism-dmitri-lytov.html --Rmcnew (talk) 22:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

(to rudieboy and those who read his above ad hominem attack and statement) I disagree that the aforementioned "ad hominem" critique on the basis that the whole theory of socionics itself has lacked consistency in being reagarded as anything other than "esoteric, mystical, protoscientific" and that there are alot of pretenders (part of a legitimate viewpoint that encourages a sort of 'scientific' advancement) in socionics theory who would just love to believe that socionics has no ties to anything remorely mystical, esoteric, or protoscientific, and yet at the the same time the same people generally lack the ability to bring socionics out of the mess they claim is there on account of the exact protoscientific nature of socionic. It is an impossible feat. I would therefore wholeheartedly agree with the statement "I rather think indeed that many of these 'socionists' live in a vacuum and are allowed to publish whatever it is they want" on account of the fact that there are a large number of socionists who do indeed engage in mystical, esoteric interpretations of socionic theory, and that there is a faction (viewpoint) in socionics theory where it is an acceptable thing to publish socionic articles that have esoteric and mystical qualities. On the other hand, stateing "without much basis in reality" seems to be implying that there is "some sort of conflict between two or more factions in socionics theory" where a socionists who wants scientific advances in socionic theory is fighting to oppose any record that there is a large faction of socionists who to this day use esoteric, mystic interpretations in socionic theory. Neutrality on this basis is to represent both viewpoints equally, and I seriously doubt that any nature of "ad hominem attacks" whether against other editors or legitimate socionic authors (who publish in socionic journals) is going to take this fact away. --Rmcnew (talk) 22:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

My comments are simply not ad hominem attacks - I simply stated my concern that this journal does not stand up to academic scrutiny. How you could interpret my words any other way I cannot imagine. RudieBoy (talk) 16:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It is about time someone decided to help collaboratively rewrite the esoteric development section

Finally! Good God ... I have been wanting people to help rewrite that section for ages.

The inspiration section and the criticism section should be separate. They don't normally go together. You are going into too much detail. We need only summarize socionics in this article. If you want to discuss your philosophy, then you should publish it in a reliable source and reference it here. This will allow you to receive criticism which will also make your point more reputable. Tcaudilllg (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

When you take a neutral position in writting thesis' and academic papers, you want to make sure that you acknowledge both sides of an issue. I am skepticle that following much of what you insinuated above would actually threaten neutrality, going back to when specific editors were being oppressive towards specific of socionics theory they did not want to be discussed in the article openly, when I am feeling now that what was written within the last few days being closer to a more neutral viewpoint. --Rmcnew (talk) 16:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

For example the following:

"The inspiration section and the criticism section should be separate. They don't normally go together." - Tcaudilllg

In order to take a neutral position in one sentence, you want to acknowledge each opposite view in the same sentence, useing subordinant clauses in the sentence. For example, a neutral way to acknowledge both the critics of socionics and the proponents in one sentence is to state something like "Though it has been argued that socionics is a mystic sciences by critics, authoritative proponents argue that socionics is a protoscience, working its way to become a legitimate social science. This is a neutral viewpoint in represnting both points of view.

Now, an example of breaking apart this neutrality would be to seperate the critic viewpoints and the proponent viewpoints, which is what you suggested and I disagree that this is appropiate. I also see the potentiality of a hint of the possibility of one specific individual intentionally abuseing wikipedia policy, for example, by isolating legitimate viewpoints in regards to socionics theory to one individual, whose credibility can be attacked in order to promote one viewpoint, to the exclusion of other viewpoints that should acknowledged, and are not actually connected to that one individual. This could lead to a "certain individual" setting another up for a "argument against the person" or Argumentum ad hominem, at least this looks highly suspecious that this is the case, espcially when it could be claimed that someones "credential" as say, a "theologian" could be used as a reason to "unneutrally exclude valid viewpoints in socionics theory that deserve acknowledgement and representation", which is not neccessarily a logically fallacy in itself except when used in the sense that an another individual wants to use anothers credentials to exclude away things that have no connection to that individual whatsoever, and thus promote unneutrality. And that is what concerns me about this "specific individuals" motive, espcially when that means promoteing the "Socionics is like Jung there is no esoterics viewpoints", which would be unneutral to promote unless it also acknowledged the point of view that claims that "socionics has esoteric roots, stemming from outdated science and mystic science". This point of view is a valid one that is disconnected from the opinions and research of "Reuben McNew" or "Theologians.

In regards to this:

"We need only summarize socionics in this article" - Tcaudilllg

Socionics IS being summarized in this article, and I am taking the suggestion as an unneutral suggestion and thus, I think it is a suggestion that would be bad for the article, taking that the actual inference is that anything that conflicts with the "socionics is only like Jung, no esoterics and should not be emphasized" viewpoint and mentions anything remotely "esoteric" should be taken out of the article, which is a thought and suggestion from you I believe to be unneutral. --Rmcnew (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Tatyana Prokofieva has a recognized PhD in socionics

According to this link http://www.socionics.ru/index_eng.htm, Tatyana Prokofieva has a PhD. in socionics. This makes the below statement and the information, in russian (webtranslated), on this link credible.

(Edited Translated) According to [Tatyana Prokofieva], the subject of Socionics is a 'study of the processes of information exchange rights with the world and their impact on the psyche'. It is therefore important Socionics, having studied the energy-centers (chakras), to draw parallels between these ancient teachings (protoscientific and esoteric philosophies) and the young science socionics. Moreover, the study of this topic to determine the correspondence between the [socionic functions (IM)] features and awakened centers (chakras). In the future, this matter will give a new clue to the study of psychological, socionic and health problems of man, will open a new approach to study the causes of diseases --Rmcnew (talk) 18:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
(Origional Translated) According to T.N. Prokofiev, the subject of Socionics is a 'study of the processes of information exchange rights with the world and their impact on the psyche'. It is therefore important Socionics, having studied the energy-centers, to draw parallels between these ancient teachings and the young science socionics. Moreover, the study of this topic to determine the correspondence between the features and functions socionic awakened centers. In the future, this matter will give a new clue to the study of psychological, socionic and health problems of man, will open a new approach to study the causes of diseases


Translated from:

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&u=http://club.trios.e-gloryon.com/index.html%3Fpage%3D6507071433&ei=r16xStyuJ5P6MbnS7PIN&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=3&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%25D0%25A7%25D0%25B0%25D0%25BA%25D1%2580%25D0%25B0%2B%25D1%2581%25D0%25BE%25D1%2586%25D0%25B8%25D0%25BE%25D0%25BD%25D0%25B8%25D0%25BA%25D0%25B0%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG</ref>

Socionics.ru website - Headed by PhD. Tatyana Prokofieva - has an article on Chakras

Origional: http://www.socionics.ru/chakry.htm

Translated: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&u=http://www.socionics.ru/chakry.htm&ei=8YmySrNcksQ2v9aVzQs&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=4&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%25D0%25A7%25D0%25B0%25D0%25BA%25D1%2580%25D0%25B0%2B%25D1%2581%25D0%25BE%25D1%2586%25D0%25B8%25D0%25BE%25D0%25BD%25D0%25B8%25D0%25BA%25D0%25B0%2Bsocionics.ru%26hl%3Den

(Translated) - In seeking a solution to this problem there are many different scientific concepts, schools of philosophy, psychological training. Study of the impact of information on the human psyche deals and Socionics, and neurolinguistic programming, and Dianetics, etc.
But the problem is not new. More than two thousand years ago the ancient philosophers of India decide this issue by studying the structure of meditative man, his thin shells. Thus were discovered and investigated energy information centers, or chakras. From the teachings of the chakras, the impact of them on a conscious, psycho-emotional life and human health and the connection of this theory with socionics introduces this article.
1. Part 1. Chakras
According to ancient Hindu esoteric psychology of man consists of seven bodies: the Higher, immortal, Triads, or the body of fire, and four lower, transient early man. For more than two thousand years ago, doctors knew the enormous influence the spiritual and mental condition of the person to his health. "Agni Yoga says:" The causes of disease lie at the root of the connection between the physical and astral worlds. The body reflects the investigation of claims originating in all the layers and depths of the cosmos. It would seem clear what the indissoluble relationship exists between the macrocosm and microcosm, but it also enlightened minds, this notion is not taken into consideration and not to go ahead with research ... The relationship between the bodies and the interaction of currents should be investigated, because the inability to accurately determine the status of the organism and his disease, not setting the fiery match. Fine study of the spiritual and physical condition will make it possible to find the fluids of decomposition. ... Because it is so important your doctor know the spiritual condition of the patient. When diseases and their control should be borne in mind the consistency of bodies and the inextricable link between them "(Fiery World. Part 3). Such a connection between the physical and other bodies carried through the Energy Centers rights, or chakras. Charles Leadbeater, a British priest, a member of the Theosophical Society of HP Blavatsky, wrote: "The chakras, or centers of power - this is the point through which energy is transferred from one body to another." So what is a chakra?

Request for informal mediation

A request for informal mediation has been opened at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-09-16/Socionics.

Named parties to the mediation are:

I am offering my services as an impartial mediator for this issue. Discussion regarding the raised matter can take place at the Mediation link above.

Informal mediation is non-binding and seeks to find consensus. Although I am an administrator I do not exercise any of my administrative rights while conducting mediation. If any parties find me unacceptable as a mediator, please advise and I will attempt to find a replacement.

Manning (talk) 05:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with meditation, but I do object to the fact that the initial premise of mediation is one which singles me out, when the problem is one amongst various other editors. I have already stated my own argumentation on the mediation page --Rmcnew (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Rmcnew - I have excised your lengthy comments and moved them to the discussion page for the mediation. This is NOT a criticism or assessment of your statements, merely a matter of mediation procedure. Also please do NOT be concerned with the wording of the mediation complaint. You will be given plenty of opportunity to present your side and the initial formulation has no impact on my opinions.

To all parties involved in the complaint: mediation is NOT a freeform discussion and it involves a degree of restriction on commenting. Mediation is usually employed because freeform discussion has broken down. I have explained how things will proceed at the mediation page. Regards Manning (talk) 01:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Translation and copying information from foreign language wikipedia - cutting down on origional research

I think another way to correct the origional research issue among the whole article in english is to copy translated aspects from out of the russian siconics wikipedia article.

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fru.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%25D0%25A1%25D0%25BE%25D1%2586%25D0%25B8%25D0%25BE%25D0%25BD%25D0%25B8%25D0%25BA%25D0%25B0

I was thinking the same thing, but we'd still have to go through all of the sources. It could provide us with some good sources, too, though. MichaelExe (talk) 22:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and translated a couple paragraphs out of there. I just have to include the links that were on the wikipedia, the way they are in the russian article. --Rmcnew (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I just got done adding the sources --Rmcnew (talk) 00:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone needs to call Signbot, because all those "anonymous" posts were by Rmcnew.
Wow, you didn't even mention Humanitarian Socionics. Way to npov Mcnew. Tcaudilllg (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Tcaudilllg, the fact that you mentioned and attempted to infer that wikipedia has a tendency to sign me out while editing is a bad thing on my part is completely rediculous, and trying to make me seem as though I have an unneutral position because I don't have the godlike ability to magically edit in every theory in existance concerning socionics theory over night is abusrd and rediculous, and transparently manipulative. I don't know how the hell you think you can keep being this way and expect to get away with it. --Rmcnew (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Just removed a signifigant amount of origional research and replaced with russian wikipedia information

I just got through removeing a signifigant amount of origional research and replaceing it with credible information from the russian socionics wikipedia article. I am going to add some more translated stuff tomorow.

I like, rmcnew, how you masked your bid to insert esoteric-related information behind a veneer of social responsibility. I had thought you capable of that in the context of my expansion model of Model B, and this act is proof of the idea. You appealed directly to paleoconservatism/empire. Yeah very interesting. On the other hand, the article in its current state simply does not reflect the opinion of leaders in the field. (Lytov is not a leader and it is frustration with that status that has lead him to withdraw).
Anyway you've yet to cite your sources. I never was a fan of the Russian article for reasons that should be pretty plain. Tcaudilllg (talk) 07:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I find it interesting that you are concealing the fact that I have contact with Gulenko through his blog and that he and I are of like mind on these matters. You are aware that I phrased the info metabolism intro so as not to fauxly intrude on the territory of the energy model, and to prevent confusion. You not only acted disingenuously, but made a point of exalting disproven hypotheses which contradict the energy model.
Of course that Gulenko wrote such a thing is not something we can cite on Wikipedia because the antiquidated rules preclude us from citing blogs as reliable sources. The point is that I understand the opinion of socionists on those matters, and that my "original research" represented. Although he doesn't want to admit it, Lytov has fallen out of the socionics mainstream because of regrettable personal biases. If he wants to correct his position, that is up to him. But Gulenko trumps Lytov any day, and Boukalov doesn't do public so Gulenko is the voice of socionics at this time.
I'll make this point: I just want to get people interested in socionics. That's the only reason I'm here. Once people get interested in socionics, I figure everything will take care of itself. (providing they understand the true spirit of socionics and not Rmcnew's delusional appraisals thereof, because if that happened it would be hugely detrimental to the cause of socionics and even Jungian typology.) Tcaudilllg (talk) 11:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Tcaudilllg, you can state your opinion on the matter, but that is all that it is ... your opinion on the matter. Though you seem to lack the ability to state your opinion on the matter respectfully and without resorting to bad logic with no foundational backing, such as using personal insults and biased extortation to back up your opinion. It is also quite obvious and transparent that your agenda is to exclude legitimate viewpoints in socionics theory that conflict with your understanding of Jung Typology, which is unneutral point of view on your part. I disagree with your methods to interest people in socionics, because you are simply distorting legitimate socionics for the cause of the gain of your own opinions on what is good or bad, and that attitude doesn't deserve to be reflected in the article, which is why the information in the russian wikipedia article is replaceing origional research from you and also myself in this article. --Rmcnew (talk) 17:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Enough

That's enough. I'm going to recommend that Reuben Mcnew be blocked from editing this page. He is plainly a PoV warrior. I am tired of reverting him. It's clear he's obsessed and is NEVER going to stop. Tcaudilllg (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The legitimate peer reviewed and phd sources I posted on socionics speak for themselves. You don't even have a leg to stand upon with your claims, and blocking me from editing wikipedia isn't going to take away the legitimate peer reviewed and phd sources that have shown to exist. Are you going to just forget you saw those sources, hide that they exist and then try to claim otherwise after I am gone? I bet you would. --Rmcnew (talk) 18:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, because they aren't the slightest bit notable. It's a pity, Rmcnew, that you can't distinguish the notable from the non-notable. Are you obsessed with the unimportant? Tcaudilllg (talk) 21:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose you are also going to call the information that was taken from the russian wikipedia article as non-notable. I suppose you can even call a PHD peer review article non-notable. In fact, you can call anything non-notable. How about this ... when in doubt, just call anything you don't want in the english socionics article "non-notible", bullshit around, and hope that you can sneakily convince a wikipedia administrator to isolate your opposition out for you so you can reverse positive credible changes in the article, and fill it chock full of some "origional research" marketing bullshit that isn't even proper socionics, because you don't want people to know that socionics is what socionics is - And that is exactly why it is correct to replace the "origional research" in the english wikipedia article with the sourced information in the russian socionics article! It is chock full of this "hey look socionics is totally like Carl Jung and MBTI" marketing bullshit that not only doesn't belong in the article, it is skewing the article away from representing legitimate socionics, which totally deserves to be represented in this article over that bullcrap. Especially when the legitimate socionics involves articles from peer reviewed and phd verified sources, which are notable for that very reason and belong in the article. That information doesn't deserve exclusion simply because you don't want that in the article from a marketing standpoint. That's bullshit. And for that reason, your claim of non-notability is bullshit. Knock it off. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

And besides what I wrote above, the majority of your reversions were unjustified for your reasons stated, especially in light of removeing valid information with PHD and Peer review justified sources, that comes from official socionic schools. Calling someone a "filthy pigs" doesn't take the notable PHD and Peer review away from the people who publish these articles, no matter what the content and whether you agree with it or not. That information deserves to be there. Just stop being unneutral and illogical about it. Thanks. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Esotericism

"Socionic theorists have considered certain comparisons between aspects of hindu philosophy, the information elements and chakras as they relate to the central nervous system scientific. In socionics, (according to this article) the sociotypes, as they relate to chakras, can be studied as a means to understand disease, and thus find cures to disease and to create health. This is both the scientific position of the founder (according to this article)Aušra Augustinavičiūtė and also the official position (according to this article) of the Socionics Research Institute in Moscow, Russia, and even discussed aspects of these deductive scientific methods in her first book, "The Dual Nature of Man". Filatova, (according to article) refers to the interaction between psychic energy, chakras, and the socionics elements as "Био-энергетика", which translates to bio-energy. This corresponds to the same terminology used in hinduism and some new age theories, when referenceing chakras."

The links are not direct sources, and http://ru.laser.ru/authors/kudr/index.html doesn't seem to be working (the video isn't loading). MichaelExe (talk) 01:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

To my knowledge the only one that could be considered a non-direct source is the one from socionics.org that states, in the heading, that it came from another socionics journal. To my knowledge the other ones origionated where they are located. What exactly are you considering a direct versus non-direct source? --Rmcnew (talk) 02:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Most of them take their information from books; the direct source is the book. They're all basically essays, and it doesn't say much about the authors of the pages (if anything at all). MichaelExe (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe manning had made a comment about the PHD credentials of Tatyana Profieka. I considered giving you and answer here, but I would be basically saying the same thing that I told him about sources.

I suppose that I could tell you that Dmitri Lytov put a couple of his later articles on other socionics websites and in webforums after he sold his socioniko website, and that Filatova, who did alot of work and research with face typeing, is a poor and elderly russian pensioner living off of the government, who writes socionics books and contributes to socionic journals in her spare time. Naturally, telling anyone this wouldn't be any different than when Tcaulldig tried to justify his origional research by saying he agrees with Gulenko personally. So, you should probably just go see what I wrote to manning considering the notability of socionics of wikipedia. I also agree that many of the supposed PHDs in the socionics world may not be credentialed. I generally have doubts that there are many sources out there that would live up to wikipedia standards (of course, that has not stopped me from looking for those sources). --Rmcnew (talk) 18:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

MichaelExe, why are you continuing to discuss this with Rmcnew? Tcaudilllg (talk) 12:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably because they know that the only thing you are capable of is personal attacks and unjustified reversions. You don't seem to do much else other than these sort of unconstructive actions against other editors. You don't seem to have the ability to constructivelly look for appropiate sources either, just spam the main article with unjustified reverts and the talk page with rediculous and libelous complaints. That's all you do all the time. --Rmcnew (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Tcaulldig making unconstructive reverts

This is completely childish. Tcaulldig keeps makeing unconstructive reverts with reasons that are purely personal attacks. I have challenged him again and again to post socionic sources and he fails to to post any. He has no credible backup for any of his claim, while I have made a continued effort to find credible sources, and to rewrite the article accordingly. I have come to the conclusion that tcaulldig just wants to (passivelly) troll around and make unconstructive reverts, for reasons that equate to unnecessary personal attacks. His reverts and personal attacks should stop immediately. In fact, that is about all he has done for the past couple of months. --Rmcnew (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Isn't calling one's behaviour childish or like that of a troll equally a personal attack? MichaelExe (talk) 13:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, correct ... it could be considered a personal attack when directed towards a person. However, the difference is that I am specifically speaking about tcaulldig's attitude and behavior (in this perceived attack from me), where tcaulldig has been making attacks against my very person, as a reason unto itself. It is purely his attitude that stinks. I think he should be allowed to stay as an editor so long as he behaves, and that would mean actually helping the rest of us for once, instead of complaints, personal attacks, and reverts. He seems to think that his opinion is better than everyone elses, even for the sake of wikipedias rules, which isn't helping the cause of the article in the slightest. He obviously doesn't want me editing the article, and he has obviously said alot of pretentious libelous crap as a poorly logical attempt to justify why. It is hard to deal with that. --Rmcnew (talk) 22:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Tatyana Prokofieva

Hi - I'm am still working through the extensive issues that surround this article so as to conduct the mediation. I have a question though...

This article seems to rely on the work of Tatyana Prokofieva to some extent. The article states that "Tatyana Prokofieva has a "recognized Ph.D.". However I searched for some evidence of Tatyana Prokofieva's credentials and could not find them. What institute awarded her the Ph.D.? Manning (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you manning. Her credentials are listed in english on the Research institute website. http://www.socionics.ru/index_eng.htm ... the institutes e-mail address is listed at the bottom. It might be more efficent for you to directly ask questions through the institutes e-mail address: socionics@socionics.ru ... --Rmcnew (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I've checked there and there is only a link to an "About Us" which doesn't work. An email response does not count as a reliable source, sadly. It is also possible to get Ph.D.s from all sorts of establishments that are not accredited to award them, for example this Californian school which offers "Ph.D.s" in Homeopathy. (Their fine print does admit that they are not accredited, however). I'm not saying her degree is fraudulent, however I have thus far been unable to identify where she submitted her thesis and which authority granted her doctorate. Generally even people who got there degrees decades ago in Soviet Russia are fairly easy to verify. Manning (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Her PHD is in socionics, so it would be through an institution that recognizes socionics. I would agree with your speculation that her PHD may not be credited through a recognized institution. In fact, socionics through that institute actually has alot in common with homeopathy as far as alternative methods goes, ironically.

As far as sources go according to wikipedia standards, socionics barely has enough notability to maintain a page on wikipedia, at least not without using alot of second hand or shady sources. That is why I stated that it would be right for the wikipedia page to be deleted when it was nominated for such, and also because the other editors were against representing legitimate socionics (or think it is something it is not), and wanted to twist it into something else altogether on the article, cutting out legitimate historical parts of the theory because of their own prejudices, meaningwhile turning it into some amalgimation that couldn't convey socionics neutrally. I have tried my best to represent the parts that these editors want to wrongly exclude from the article. Socionics would not be socionics without noteing this information.

If you want to have PHD peer reviewed articles, than you would have to recognize that people like Alexander Bukalov and Tatyana Prokofieva have PHDs that may not be certified by any credited authority. In fact, she may have gotten her PHD through another socionics institute or through someone else in the same institute. I wouldn't know how to verify this short of clarifying through written inquirey to the individuals or the institutes themselves. I would say that Tatyana Prokofieva's PHD isn't any more credible than Alexander Bukalovs in this regards. --Rmcnew (talk) 16:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as any source of credible PHD authority for socionics, the supposed PHDs within the institutions are it. I think there are a few english speaking people who have PHDs in psychology who know about socionics, and talk about it; though, the same people don't seem to have written or said much publically that can be referenced. I agree that the PHDs in the socionics world may not have any more force than say a non-accredited PHD degree in homeopathy, accupuncture, or some metaphysical school. If socionics is to be included on wikipedia at all, those are the PHDs. Take it or leave it. There is not much more notability for socionics in general elsewise. --Rmcnew (talk) 18:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

PhDs in socionics are now awarded by the International Institute of Socionics. To my knowledge it is not an accredited instution of education, but established a council to award "degrees" within the community in order to help protect the professional community from quacks. The history and terms of these degrees is described at the Institute's website. FYI the Institute is not a physical location, but is a lofty name for a group of socionists that carry out individual research and produce regular publications who are trying to add some legitimacy to the field of socionics. It receives no government funding and is not part of the official academic establishment of Ukraine. --Rick DeLong (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I know it's against the rules but...

I'm going to be citing Viktor Gulenko's blog in this article. Technically his blog is an auxiliary to his published work. It also explains why I worded the information metabolism section as I did.

If there are any claims that the blog is an unreliable source, I will ignore them. Tcaudilllg (talk) 12:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

This is much worse than what Rmcnew has been doing. At least he tries to look for better sources and recognizes the one's that are unreliable when pointed out. You jump in the middle of everything, starting with the same type of unreliable sources as Rmcnew did (much earlier on) and immediately claim you'll ignore anyone's arguments against your edits. I give him credit for working with us. MichaelExe (talk) 13:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
You'd much sooner be banned from the article than him with this against you. MichaelExe (talk) 13:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Your judgment is flawed. You are unable to appreciate Rmcnew's zealousness for his cause. And if you think for one second that socionics has anything to do with esoterism, then you need a reality check. Chakras had no more to do with socionics than highly subjective interpretations of passages from Jung's Collected Works. A source of inspiration alone. It's like saying relativity is about cows flying at lightspeed just because Einstein says a dream about such inspired him.
I'll cite from Gulenko's blog if I please. There are citations from John Romero's blog in his article, so I'll be damned if I can't quote excerpts from the Humanitarian Socionics website. Check your sources next time, sir. Besides Wikipedia's blog policy is in need of revision: the public is clearly moving towards blogs as a medium for reliable source publishing. As I recall there are citations from the Huffington Post all over the political articles. Are you to "clean" those up too? Think about the spirit of the law, not the letter. Tcaudilllg (talk) 16:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I'll remove the citations from John Romero's blog, too, then. Just because someone with a PhD said it, doesn't make it true.
Also, I don't really care about politics, but I do care about policies (one of which you're about to break). If you go against Wikipedia's content policies, you'll lose all credibility in your arguments against Rmcnew, because you'll be accusing him of what you are also guilty. You're only going to perpetuate the dispute.
The only way this article will ever meet Wikipedia's standards is if we gather reliable sources and try to work from there, together.
And Rmcnew recognizes when his sources are inadequate after I point it out; I can at least work with that. MichaelExe (talk) 17:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Plus, whether or not Wikipedia's blog is in need of revision is your opinion. If the majority shared it, the policy would have changed.
Frankly, your opinion does not matter to Wikipedia, nor does Rmcnew's or mine, for that matter. MichaelExe (talk) 17:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
No but common sense does. Tcaudilllg (talk) 18:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Not as much as policy.
Look, I'm not trying to be a dick. If you cite unreliable sources, I won't revert you, but I will remove the links. That way, the content will still remain; you just need to find a better source. The "it's going to be my way, and don't try to stop me" attitude is not good for Wikipedia. Work with us, not against us. MichaelExe (talk) 19:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I don't know the history of this dispute or all of Wikipedia standards, but in my opinion citing Viktor Gulenko's blog (Russian) could be appropriate depending on the context. It is written in essentially the same style as his articles and elucidates the same views, probably with greater clarity than his longer and more generalized articles. Just like myself, he has found the blog format useful for writing shorter articles. They're still basically articles though. --Rick DeLong (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Rick, do you think the esoterism stuff is notable in this article? Tcaudilllg (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I've given my opinion on the dispute page. --Rick DeLong (talk) 22:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I've given my response on the dispute page. --Rmcnew (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


I think I should note that tcaulldig's presence would be much more appreciated in the case that he were to actually begin to help the rest of us, as opposed to spending the majority of time talking loads of crap about other editors, when that time would be more beneficially spent looking for credible sources that would justify the presence of the article as a whole on Wikipedia. --Rmcnew (talk) 20:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually all things considered, I'm spending my time very well. Tcaudilllg (talk) 23:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
That's better ... --Rmcnew (talk) 01:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

[blank section header]

I challenge the accuracy of this statement. It says that Augusta was the one who first urged the acceptance of the geometric function symbols as a standard. How exactly does one really know that it was Augusta who introduced those symbols first as a standard? Since it was Bukalov and Gulenko who were the ones who refined the current system of socionics, and Bukalov apparently has been well studied into esoteric practices do you think maybe that it was really through Bukalov's urgeing that caused the socionics functions as symbol representations to become standard, especially as that he is so familiar with so many esoteric practices? Since it has been claimed by some (of a certain viewpoint) that Ausura Augusta wanted a scientific socionics, would not have Ausura Augusta herself have been opposed to any sort of standard that appears to be esoteric in any way? --Rmcnew (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is a source (my translation from On the Dual Nature of Man by A.Augusta, as quoted in Russian Wikipedia article on Socionics:
"A few words about the origin of the graphic symbols:
We have denoted extraverted sensing with a circle - a shape that creates the impression of the fullest contact with external reality, intuition with a triangle which fits into a circle perfectly. Logic and ethics are the external form and internal content of the same process. So, if we have denoted logic with a square as a symbol of rigor of thought, then a symbol that fits into a square must be chosen for the internal aspect of the same phenomenon of emotional intensity. That is how the square without a corner arose."
Here Augusta makes no reference to outside sources for her/their choice of symbols. The only question is, who is "we?" I would assume she is referring to her group of friends and associates in Vilnius with whom she discussed ideas and ultimately created the framework of socionics. I cannot absolutely rule out that Bukalov or Gulenko in Kiev were included in the "we," however, this seems highly unlikely. This article called "A Model of Information Metabolism", which uses the symbols, was first published in April 1980, in Lithuanian (according to footnote at bottom of article), when Bukalov would have been 20 years old. At Bukalov's bio page on socioniko.net, Bukalov's earliest publication listed is from 1991. According to information from my interview with Bukalov and Karpenko, Augusta worked on her ideas primarily from 1968 to 1980 in Vilnius. In any case, Augusta makes no suggestion of esoteric sources for the symbols. The Russian socionics community understands or assumes that Augusta introduced the symbols herself. For instance, in the Russian Wikipedia article directly before the quote I translated it says: "for graphic notation of the aspects Augustinavichiute introduced the symbols:..." --Rick DeLong (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Rmcnew

Air is blue circle. Earth is yellow square. Fire is red triangle. Water is crescent shape. Spirit is the black oval shape.

I have raised this point with you before, but you have done nothing to rectify the situation. You still insist on seemingly putting your own point of view into the article - why do you think it acceptable for example to say "Although it has been claimed openly (and falsely)..." - without justification.

also, "all evidence suggests that Antoni Kępiński, esoteric and cosmological understandings of the human body had a much broader influence over the development of socionics than Carl Jung, his theory and Myer-Briggs typology ever had" - all evidence...really?

and, "[...]though it could be said that all three typology theories have a foundational basis in esoteric cosmology and alchemy." "though it could be said" - yes, but said by who? you? This is just one sentence of Rmcnew's I object to - he does this throughout his contributions to the article, and I really wish he'd learn to write to the required standard. RudieBoy (talk) 17:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is actually related to a similar problem I have noted in the above paragraph. The entire "Information metabolism" section is completely and entirely unsourced, and yet it attributes things to Ausura Augusta that are attributed to the efforts of the other founders. I would even go so far to say that the whole couple of paragraphs below are "unsubstantiated original research concerning ausura augusta that is based on no sources whatsoever." Whoever wrote the "Information Metabolism" subarticle should rewrite a significant portion of it according to viable sources, with the correct credit being given to the origination of various portions of socionics theory. And by the "information metabolism" section I am referring to the following. --Rmcnew (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I would advise for everyone to do a collaborative rewrite of both that paragraph rudieboy mentioned and also the entire section below according to viable sources (at the same time): --Rmcnew (talk) 18:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

"Information elements
In socionics, Jung's functions are always introverted or extroverted, and are referred to as functions of information metabolism. These functions are said to process information aspects. To understand what an information aspect is, it is necessary to understand information metabolism as Augustinavičiūtė understood it.
Our world is populated by entities of various kinds, each of which have defining characteristics and properties. The brain processes incoming data in its quest for understanding of the world: it identifies relationships between these datum and thus, categorizes them as a recognizable phenomena for easy reference. As an example, consider the case of a child who sees an apple for the first time. If they have been previously taught that the color qualia we associate with "red" is red, then will they will notice that the color of the apple is red. They have recalled the color red upon being confronted with red colors. Now imagine that the child has not yet been instructed on the color red. They simply see a different color than they have seen before. They have two options: to infer the existence of a new color, or to dismiss its lack of recognizable color by saying there is no color. Barring these, the child could also choose to assert that it is of a previously recognized color, perhaps the color nearest in hue to what they now see. Whatever the child's determination, the apple's color qualia will be remembered as a unique concept in its own right, and will be referred to whenever that specific qualia is again encountered. In essence, a "copy" of the color data has been set aside for future reference, to be recalled when faced with familiar data. These "reference copies" are what we refer to when we speak of "information", and the process of creating the copy is what Augustinavičiūtė called "information metabolism".
Augustinavičiūtė held that there were eight functions of information metabolism, each of which processed a specific kind of information. Which function is chosen to process which aspect depends on what characteristics of an entity are being observed. Socionists have identified six categories of entity characteristics:
   :::* characteristics that are internal to the entity and private to it
   * characteristics that appear only in relation to other entities (termed "external")
   * characteristics that are considered "in flux" and prone to change in the course of their consideration (called "dynamics")
   * characteristics that are considered unchanging for the duration of their consideration ("statics")
   * characteristics that are apparent when the entity is considered as a field (meaning "a relationship between objects")
   * characteristics that are apparent when the entity is considered as an object
The categories are arranged into three mutually exclusive pairs (dichotomies). You cannot, for example, observe both an entities' internal and external characteristics at once, only in alternation. The exclusivity rule yields eight permutations in total. Although the categorization is conducted outside of our awareness, a given aspect can be successfully corresponded with its element through a technique of intuitive abstraction. This abstraction, called "aspect analysis", weighs the characteristics of the aspect considered between each of the three pairs, using the intuitive meaning of the characteristics as a vise by which to identify which element the aspect is "most like". The technique allows that a person's speech be scrutinized for usage of specific aspects, and the frequency of their use of elements quantitatively gauged. This method, called "semantic analysis", has resulted in some of the most significant and persuasive discoveries in socionics.
Of all the aspects of socionics study, "aspectonics", as the study of information elements is called, may be the most difficult to grasp. Although Augusta argues that every information aspect belongs to one of the eight elements, she does not submit that there cannot be further categorizations in the context of the eight.
To impress upon her students that what was being spoken of were strictly intuitive abstractions, Augustinavičiūtė introduced geometric symbols for each information element. These symbols are still in use today, although other notations have been proposed. In common usage, Viktor Gulenko's system , which uses Latin symbols, is favored in Russia and other non-English speaking countries, while the two letter MBTI convention is favored in English-speaking forums."

"

collaborative rewrite of "information metabolism" sections and also "Criticism of socionics theory (rational skepticism)"

We need to all work together to find viable sources that can be used to rewrite all sections of these two portions of the article at the same time. I am sure that Rudieboy especially would be interested in doing some of the work to find sources for the rewrite. As it stands several paragraphs in both are completely origional research and in the most extreme cases the entire "information metabolism" section has no sources at all to justify anything that is written there, so we should all work together on this to solve this issue in a positive way. Thanks. --Rmcnew (talk) 18:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between the two sections - the sections composed by you are full of weasel words and blatant untruths - the use of the word "obvious" by you for example in the sentence "although obvious correlations between socionics theory, occult and esoteric philosophies derived from such groups have caused speculation that this is the case". Also, speculation by who? You are making your 'argument' sound far more persuasive than it is. For example, the sentence "It is possible that she was not even aware during her life that her theory contains esoteric and occult elements, and that she perceived her activities to be normal and scientific" is completely unnecessary - why put such a speculation? Of course it's possible, but it is pure speculation.

Even if what you say is true, as you state that this section is full of "weasel words and blatant untruths". It is hypocritical to judge that one section when there are whole other entire sections, (which could be more credible) have no source credibility whatsoever. Especially when there are sources that justify the existance of esoteric methods in socionics theory. But let me tell you something. Either Ausura Augusta knew that her theory had esoteric principles, or she did not know and considered them scientific. Or she knew that the esoteric principles were not scientific, yet wanted to make something scientific out of them. Some of you are making insistent statements that ausura augusta considered her works to be scientific, and yet what ausura augusta basically did was take esoteric based philosophies and make them into something scientific. Let me tell you what is the truth here.

- According to dmitri lytov, the socionics function elements are considered to be derived from the central nervous system. The tattwa element in Tantra Buddhism are considered to be derived from the central nervous system. The hermetic order of the golden dawn considers the tattwas to be derived from the central nervous system. Many new age movement philosophies have always used the tattwas and declared the same, that the tattwas correspond to the central nervous system. --Rmcnew (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The central nervous system is a well-substantiated part of the body, and is as a matter of fact which is completely independent from these "tattwas". RudieBoy (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

- Official socionics researchers in both Kiev, Ukraine and Moscow, Russia have used corresponding chakra points with the socionics function elements (according to cosmological placements) to do psychological testing. Accupuncture specialists in Asia have used chakra points (according to cosmological placements) to tell where to place their needles. --Rmcnew (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "official"? Any "evidence" you have shown linking socionics and the use of chakra "theory" simply has no quantitative data, and certainly no substantiated link. RudieBoy (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

- Information metabolism theory as derived from both Kempimsky and Ausura Augusta are based on esoteric concepts of psychic energy, chakra placements, and cosmological comparisons to the human body. --Rmcnew (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I have seen no evidence whatsoever that Kempikski or Augusta were inspired by these "esoteric concepts". RudieBoy (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
It is entirely substantiated to say that socionics has equal standing with other esoteric based philosophies, whether you like that stated or not. Whatever happens, I do thinks some portions of what I have written can be rewritten for quality. I just have to be sure that the other editors are interested in actually neutrally stating all information, which is something I have not been totally convinced about taking the behavior of some of the editors.
It's not a question of what I like - it's a question of what can actually be substantiated. I don't believe it is - you have failed to convince me of it. The fact that you say entirely substantiated speaks volumes about your approach. RudieBoy (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
It is not a question of convinceing you, it is objectivelly representing socionics without a bias that appears to be from a "proponent of socionics", which is what you and several other editors have completely failed to do, and what I am succedding in doing. I completely expect other editors to disagree with this approach, but I will continue to do what I feel is right or necessary regardless. --Rmcnew (talk) 02:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
You are correct that "The fact that you say entirely substantiated speaks volumes about your approach," because what I am saying is 100% correct, and her is why:
First, off, Dmitri Lytov himself had stated that the socionics elements were associated with the central nervous system. The hermetic order of the Golden Dawn, Tantra Buddhism, and new age philosophies have stated that the tattwas are associated with the central nervous system. The socionic elements are a triangle, a square, a circle, and an L shaped crecent. The tattwas are a triangle, a square, a circle, a crescent shape, and an oval shape.
Second, chakras and their relationship to the information elements have been shown to be an intregal part of socionics theory, as well as chakras and tattwas have been an intregal part of hermetic philosophies, tantra philosophies, and new age philosophies.
Third, Bukalov has not only authored officialy hermetic and other esoteric/new age material for publishing from his official publishing house in Kiev, Ukraine, he allows esoteric methods in relationship to socionics theory to be published from his publishing house. If you are too oblivious or stubborn to note the substantiality of this fact in relationship to socionics theory, heaven and earth raining itself on you probably isn't going to change your mind on the matter.
Fourth, the sources themselves make blatant ommisions that esotericism is present in socionics theory, in various forms. It is futile to deny this. --Rmcnew (talk) 02:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Again, in the sentence "While the similarities between hermeticism and socionics theory are notable and apparent" - this is clearly your point of view.
No, it is not my view that "while the similarities between hermeticism and socionics theory are notable and apparent", it is a neutral truth which I will defend to the very latter. There is only one point of view, a neutral point of view and admission to these sort of things when you don't necessarily agree with the assimilation of certain information promotes neutrality, despite what you personally think should be assimilated. It would be unneutral to only present a "boxed" point of view that is purely only from a proponent of socionics, which is what many of you are unknowingly doing, and don't realize it. --Rmcnew (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
'Notable' and 'apparent' are not quantifiable words, and hence, naturally, they must be reflective of someone's point of view, even if you invented such a person. I am fed up with arguing over something which should be so obvious.RudieBoy (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
"Nevertheless, some socionists debate whether the esoteric material published through the socionics publishing house in Kiev, Ukraine is thoroughly representative of socionics as a whole. Some pro-science socionists with extreme anti-esoteric viewpoints have even denied the existence of esoteric applications altogether either currently or in the shaping of original socionics theory by Aušra Augustinavičiūtė, despite the persistent presence of socionics source material admittedly esoteric and published from official socionic publishing houses based in Kiev, Ukraine or elsewhere." - which socionists? Also, "pro-science socionists with extreme anti-esoteric viewpoints" is your point of view.

I am only interested in promoting a "neutral point of view", and I disagree with the other editors who think that exclusion of certain elements promotes neutrality, when the point of view is significant enough to mention. --Rmcnew (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

"It is debated by socionists whether the origional founders of socionics first intended the theory to be something esoteric or scientific, though the latter tends to be argued more than the former." - which socionists? Do you consider yourself a socionist? You are the only person I know of to claim that "the origional founders of socionics first intended the theory to be something esoteric".

This sentence "You are the only person I know of to claim that "the origional founders of socionics first intended the theory to be something esoteric" is innacurate. I have never claimed this. I have claimed that esoteric methods exists in socionics theory, decending from the founders themselves, but whether or not each individual founder wanted something scientific or esoteric I think is an issue of debate, because apparently (from the source materials) some founders were looking for scientific advancements with socionics and others encouraged or tolerated esoteric advancements in socionics theory. It was both, not one or the other ... both. This is very typical of later protoscientific movements before the development of more modern scientific methods. --Rmcnew (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The bits of the article not done by you may need better referencing (which I have addressed somewhat), but I don't believe that this part suffers from the blatant misrepresentations frequently occuring in the sections done by you. RudieBoy (talk) 23:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Also, please cite your source for the claim that "It is debated by socionists whether the origional founders of socionics first intended the theory to be something esoteric". RudieBoy (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

What you call blatant "misrepresention" is what I call the "road to a neutral point of view" and "away from the 'boxed in' view" of socionics that some of the other editors have been promoting. In fact, I believe that many of the other editors have encouraged "blatant misrepresention" with their unwillingness to the assimilation of valid socionics information that seems adjunct to the "socionics is like MBTI, Jung and not esoteric" point of view, which isn't the only point of view in socionics theory. A large faction of those practicing socionics theory do dabble in esoteric methods and mix those in with socionics. That fact should be represented in the article. Many of the esoteric methods descended directly found the founders, including ausura augusta. Did they consider those methods scientific, though they are esoteric in nature? I would say that is the case. --Rmcnew (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

As for the other article "Information Metabolism" there is absolutely nothing to substantiate the information there, while there are at the same time numerous sources that substantiate that esoteric methods of psychic energy, chakras, uages of tattwas, and hermeticism exist in socionics theory even as far back as "ausura augusta" was formulating socionics theory. Either the esoteric methods that exist in socionics theory are attributed to her or they are attributed to another founder, and which is that? It is either one of those two options. --Rmcnew (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Augusta was the sole founder of Socionics, and she made it quite clear that Jung's typology formed the foundation of her work. She does not refer to the role that "esoteric" subjects played in her modification of Jung's theory - she does however refer to empirical observations being behind the modifications. RudieBoy (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Augusta may be considered an origional founder who BUILT upon the theory of others. However, it is acurate to say that much of what you think is attributed to Ausura Augusta is not actually attributed to Ausura Augusta. Some things that are mathematically (or in other cases, esoterically) derived as a standard part of socionics theory are acutally attributed to Gulenko, Bukalov, and Reinin, even though some of these things are supposedly attributed solely to her. She did not do everything herself. As far as esotericism is concerned I have a good faith belief that the esoteric, hermetic, influence came as a result of Bukalov's and other founders work on socionics theory, and that Ausura Augusta was blindly following until she had no choice but to accept the developing mystic viewpoint. For that reason, Ausura Augusta would not have been aware that socionics theory had esoteric and occult associations until later on, in her old age, and she evidently had agreed with those associations. I agree that she probably (at least initially) intended socionics theory to be scientific, but taking her protoscientific methods (with esoteric links) her theory as it origionally came from her also fell signifigantly short of a modern scientific standard, and that should have been evident from the start (as it is completely evident now). --Rmcnew (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
She was the original founder, pure and simple. Any "esoteric" links made to Socionics after its foundation are irrelevant, as being esoteric, they are naturally unsubstantiated, and thus not worthy of merit. Hypotheses with some substatiation may be worthy of inclusion because they have been shown to have some link to the initial hypothesis, but otherwise, it is not Socionics as Augusta defined it. RudieBoy (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Let me start by stateing what I think is substantiated above:

The following: "She was the original founder, pure and simple." is substantiated.

The following statements are unsubstantiated according to source materials:

Any "esoteric" links made to Socionics after its foundation are irrelevant, as being esoteric, they are naturally unsubstantiated, and thus not worthy of merit.

This statement is unsubstantiated according to sources. The sources show that socionics is a protoscience, as it decended from ausura augusta. it is clear that socionics is a protoscience that is on par with philosophies similar to hermeticism. Hermeticism also has had scientific claims, that are now either labeled protoscientific or pseudoscientific. It is clear that the methods of ausura augusta are on the fringe of current scientific methods, and that while it is safe to say that ausura augusta may have believed her theory to be of a scientific standard, it was a protoscientific standard that also had esoteric qualities, therefore esoteric methods are also at the base of socionics theory as it decended from ausura augusta, despite her potential belief in the scientific development of her theory.
And in relationship to the following:

Hypotheses with some substatiation may be worthy of inclusion because they have been shown to have some link to the initial hypothesis, but otherwise, it is not Socionics as Augusta defined it."

There are no hypothesis'. Socionics is indefinatelly a protoscientific theory on par with the same scientific methods involved with hermeticism. This is the neutral truth. --Rmcnew (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
A protoscience most certainly can be a hypothesis. In the case of socionics, it has some case studies which have supported the initial hypotheses. Not only have you not shown hermeticism to have any scientific merit, but you have also failed to show how hermeticism has a link to socionics theory as derived by Augusta which has any quantifiable correlation - i.e. relevance. You have shown once again that you have no idea how the scientific method works. RudieBoy (talk) 15:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
The tattwas. Air is blue circle. Earth is yellow square. Fire is red triangle. Water is crescent shape. Spirit is the black oval shape.
Once again I ask that other editors avoid making personal attacks, for example, the statement "you have shown once again that you have no idea how the scientific method works" obviously has nothing to do with editing the information in the article. Furthermore, the above statement has no validity in rebuttal other than for the purpose of ignoring the evidence showing socionics socionics to either be wholly hermetic or heavily influenced by hermeticism, and for the sake of making a personal attack, which according to established logic is a flawed way to make rebuttals. --Rmcnew (talk) 00:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
First, off, Dmitri Lytov himself had stated that the socionics elements were associated with the central nervous system. The hermetic order of the Golden Dawn, Tantra Buddhism, and new age philosophies have stated that the tattwas are associated with the central nervous system. The socionic elements are a triangle, a square, a circle, and an L shaped crecent. The tattwas are a triangle, a square, a circle, a crescent shape, and an oval shape.
Second, chakras and their relationship to the information elements have been shown to be an intregal part of socionics theory, as well as chakras and tattwas have been an intregal part of hermetic philosophies, tantra philosophies, and new age philosophies.
Third, Bukalov has not only authored officialy hermetic and other esoteric/new age material for publishing from his official publishing house in Kiev, Ukraine, he allows esoteric methods in relationship to socionics theory to be published from his publishing house. If you are too oblivious or stubborn to note the substantiality of this fact in relationship to socionics theory, heaven and earth raining itself on you probably isn't going to change your mind on the matter.
Fourth, the sources themselves make blatant ommisions that esotericism is present in socionics theory, in various forms. It is futile to deny this. --Rmcnew (talk) 01:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

"Third, Bukalov has not only authored officialy hermetic and other esoteric/new age material for publishing from his official publishing house in Kiev, Ukraine, he allows esoteric methods in relationship to socionics theory to be published from his publishing house. " -- What exactly are you referring to? Unless hermeticism is known by a different name in Russian, I have heard nothing of it in Russian socionics. Bukalov has dabbled in new-age topics such as astrology. However, I disagree with the claim that Bukalov had a significant influence upon the development of socionics theory. As I understand, and have had no reason to question, the theory was developed by Augusta within a group of friends and associates in Vilnius. Bukalov learned of socionics, I believe, when Augusta was giving public lectures on it in Kiev. A reading of Augusta's books in Russian shows that she treated the ideas as scientific hypotheses that were in need of further development and empirical studies. The tendency at socionics conferences in Kiev is increasingly to divorce socionics of proposed connections to the esoteric or nonscientific and to push for greater academic acceptance of the field.

Finally, my last name is DeLong, not Dulong, and I don't consider myself an "associate of Bukalov," as this would suggest some sort of professional relationship. "Personal acquaintance" would be accurate. --Rick DeLong (talk) 01:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to respond to a number of things here:

"What exactly are you referring to? Unless hermeticism is known by a different name in Russian" - Rick Delong

Now, if you are wondering about "synergetics" and "cybernetics", they both come from the philosopher Buckminster Fuller, as is indicated by this google websearch: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=synergetics+cybernetics&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

It is known to socionics as "synergetics". Dmitri Lytov refers to the "hermetic science (yes, actually click on the blue link)" that was recently rederived as "synergetics", which comes from the esoteric philosopher Buckminster Fuller. This is Dmitri Lytovs account.

“Informational approach” (Alexander Bukalov, Olga Karpenko, Vladimir Ermak and others, and on the other hand - the alleged “Antisocionics” of Shiyan). Its adherents refer to socionics types as “types of information metabolism.” Moreover, they consider this concept not only applicable to the human psyche, but – in a more global sense – to “information” in general. It is significant that these ideas are extremely similar to some eccentric views, but also to synergetics (the theory of self-organizing systems), having recently sprouted from the depths of cybernetics. Unfortunately, very little is known scientifically about the relation of socionics with synergetics and, in a broader sense, with cybernetics. There is also the matter that the Kiev international institute of socionics is highly sympathetic to a number of esoteric approaches, rejected by the scientific world.

And the following below by Bukalov is recognizably "synergetics" and also "hermeticism":

Physics of Consciousness Boukalov A.V. Conscience and the Universe
It is shown that the universal vacuum if viewed as a conglomerate of relativist fields may be described as a giant computing system that controls movement of micro-particles and macro-bodies (planets, stars, etc.) Alike physical processes run in semiconductor crystals of modern computers used for construction of artificial intelligence systems. As an analogue of macro-computer, the Universe in total inevitably possesses attributes of consciousness and intelligence, and its particular subsystems interact with human consciousness and find their interpretation within the framework of religious systems and beliefs. Key words: consciousness, physical vacuum, computer, computations, religion. --Rmcnew (talk) 01:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
"Bukalov has dabbled in new-age topics such as astrology. However, I disagree with the claim that Bukalov had a significant influence upon the development of socionics theory." - Rick Delong

Bukalov is dabbling in more than just new age astrology, he is dabbling in hermeticism itself under the guise of 'synergetics', hermetics of which is actually the source of astrology. You claim that Bukalov has had no significant influence upon the development of socionics theory. That is different than what is claimed by Dmitri Lytov, who claims that it was Bukalov who redefined the current structure of socionics theory. --Rmcnew (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This is what Dmitri Lytov says:

"Two researchers from Kiev, Victor Gulenko and Alexander Bukalov, reformed socionics: they defined its subject and methodology, and created its terminology, which is used until now. Due to their activity, Kiev (Ukraine) became an “informal capital” of the socionics. "
"A reading of Augusta's books in Russian shows that she treated the ideas as scientific hypotheses that were in need of further development and empirical studies." - Rick Delong

As far as what you said about Ausura Augusta believeing her theory to be scientific and empirical, I agree with that. But, her methods should be examed. She could have had a entirely different idea of science that conflicts the methods of science people recognize today. So, going by Ausura Augusta's word alone that her ideas are (by hypothesis) scientific is not enough to qualify her theory or even socionics in general to be scientific. --Rmcnew (talk) 19:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as the tattwas and information elements are concerned, those are both a part of hermeticism and also tantra philosophy, so the tattwas through either one or both of those could have been the model for the derivation of the socionic shapes. --Rmcnew (talk) 22:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Socionics.ru statement that the intertype relationships are compared to Dmitri Mendeleev Periodic table of the elements - connection to the theory of Synergetics and Hermeticism (counter-argument to Rick Delong's refutations)

In response to "Refutations of Rick Delong" (included at the bottom)

A detailed description of the periodic table is found here

It says this on socionics.ru -----

Aushra Augustinavichuite’s student V. Lyashkyavichus has worked out a table of intertype relationships, that is, relationships between personality types. This table is often and rightfully compared to Mendeleev’s table in chemistry. As Mendeleev’s table has made of description chemistry a science with exact rules and criteria, introduction of the intertype relationships table has brought objective criteria into the science of interpersonal relationships.

Source: http://en.socionics.ru/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=249&Itemid=109

It says this on www.ipst.umd.edu ----

Section 21.1 The search for regularity in the list of elements

O. Theodore Benfey, "Precursors and cocursors of the Mendeleev table: The Pythagorean spirit in element classification," Bulletin for the History of Chemistry, nos. 13-14, pages 60-66 (Winter/Spring 1992-1993)

Source: http://www.ipst.umd.edu/Faculty/brush/physicsbibliography.htm

It says this on www.unm.edu ----

While step 2 requires some degree of chemical knowledge or experience, it does compress the amount of knowledge needed to treat a large variety of analogous compounds. There are 50 representative elements, which can combine in 2,500 possible ways to form binary molecules. However, there are only eight families of representative elements. Thus knowledge of the properties of only 8 representative binary molecules allows one to predict the properties of the remaining (42-8)x(42-8) = 1,156 possible pairs. The advantage increases with the number of atoms in the molecules ((42 - 8)n vs 8n, for n = 2, 3, etc. atoms).

Source: http://www.unm.edu/~dmclaugh/PrinciplesPDF/8_Periodicity.pdf

It says this on deoxy.org ----

In the 1860s, English chemist John Newland showed that all the chemical elements fall into eight families. Since Pythagorean mysticism was unfashionable at that time, Newland was literally laughed at and rejected by the Royal Chemical Society. In the 1870s, with much more detail than Newland, the Russian chemist Mendeleyev proved once and for all that the elements do, indeed, fall into eight families. His Periodic Table of the Elements, an octave of hauntingly Pythagorean harmony, hangs in every high-school chemistry class today. (The Royal Society later apologized to Newland and gave him a Gold Medal.)

Source: http://deoxy.org/eoctave.htm

It says this on honolulu.hawaii.edu

4.3.1.7. are these just Pythagorean coincidences, or do they mean something?

Source: http://honolulu.hawaii.edu/distance/sci122/Programs/p29/p29.html

Click Dmitri Mendeleev for the wikipedia page. --Rmcnew (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Socionics - Buckminster Fuller, Hermann Haken, Periodic Table and Synergetics

It says this on deoxy.org ----

R. Buckminster Fuller, in his Synergetic-Energetic Geometry, which he claims is the "co-ordinate system of the Universe," reduces all phenomena to geometric-energetic constructs based on the tetrahedron (4-sided), the octet truss (8-sided) and the coupler (8-faceted with 24 phases). Fuller argues specifically that the 8-face, 24-phase coupler underlies the 8-fold division of the chemical elements on the Mendeleyev Periodic Table.

Source: http://deoxy.org/eoctave.htm --Rmcnew (talk) 15:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It says this on zanngill.com ----

I call this third option synergetic evolution, recalling Buckminster Fuller’s emphasis on synergy (wholes greater than the sum of their parts). Physicist Hermann Haken explored synergetics as the dynamic of self-organizing complex systems.

Source: http://zanngill.com/2dd.html

Periodic Table of the Elements as it relates to the Synergetic Theory of Hermann Haken

It says this on complexsystems.org ----

HERMAN HAKEN The work of the physicist Herman Haken and various colleagues over the past 20 years in the science of "synergetics" should also be mentioned (1973, 1977, 1983, 1988). Synergetics is defined as the science of co-operation, and Haken pioneered the scientific analysis of hierarchically organized co-operative phenomena in physics, with applications also in biology and the social sciences. He was one of the early workers also in chaos theory and self-organization and was one of the first to recognize cooperative self-ordering in various kinds of dynamical systems. A contribution of particular importance was a recognition that complex dynamical systems are Janusfaced. In some circumstances, the introduction of small changes can enhance the stability of the system or cause no significant disturbance. Yet, in other circumstances, a small change can completely destabilize the system -- a phenomenon subsequently developed by other workers and given the name of "self-organized criticality" (Bak and Chen, 1991). Haken also pioneered in the study of hierarchical control in dynamical systems. In particular, he identified two very different kinds. One involves distributed, mutual control among system parts in order to maintain a stable collective state (homeostasis). The other involves the introduction of superordinate "order parameters."

Source: http://www.complexsystems.org/publications/pdf/synselforg.pdf

It says this on complexsystems.org ----

Synergy is clearly not a peripheral phenomenon associated only with drug interactions or corporate mergers. Though it often travels in disguise, synergy can be found in the subject-matter of most, if not all of the academic disciplines. In physics, it is associated with the behavior of atoms and subatomic particles, as well as with superconductivity, synchronous light emissions (lasers) and such esoteric molecular phenomena as scale effects -- the "broken symmetries" highlighted in physicist Perry Anderson's classic article "More is Different" (1972). Indeed, the periodic table of elements is a monument to the many forms of synergy that are responsible both for the naturally occurring stable elements and for the more unstable or even transitory creations of modern physics; various combinations of atomic building-blocks produce substances with very different emergent properties. Even the chaotic phenomena which have been the subject of intensive research by physicists and mathematicians in recent years exhibit many forms of synergy.

Source: http://www.complexsystems.org/publications/pdf/synselforg.pdf

Alexander Bukalov and Synergetics connection

It says this on socionics.ibc.com.ua ----

A.V.Bukalov Quantum Changes of Informational Medium The notion is suggested of the quantum change and structuring as per functions of informational metabolism of the informational medium within the collective or society in general. "Primitive" group is considered; it is shown, that 8 functional roles of this group correspond to 8 functions of the model of informational metabolism (A model). E.g.: the "chief of the gang" belongs to the first, i.e. programming function. Attention is given to the roles distribution in administrative group and A model function. Key words: socionics, quantum changes of the informational medium, primitive group, administrative group, psychology, synergetics, model of informational metabolism. --Rmcnew (talk) 15:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Source: http://www.socionics.ibc.com.ua/ej/soc_98_1.html

It says this on the16types.info ----

“Informational approach” (Alexander Bukalov, Olga Karpenko, Vladimir Ermak and others, and on the other hand - the alleged “Antisocionics” of Shiyan). Its adherents refer to socionics types as “types of information metabolism.” Moreover, they consider this concept not only applicable to the human psyche, but – in a more global sense – to “information” in general. It is significant that these ideas are extremely similar to some eccentric views, but also to synergetics (the theory of self-organizing systems), having recently sprouted from the depths of cybernetics. Unfortunately, very little is known scientifically about the relation of socionics with synergetics and, in a broader sense, with cybernetics. There is also the matter that the Kiev international institute of socionics is highly sympathetic to a number of esoteric approaches, rejected by the scientific world.

Source: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/articles/24685-information-metabolism-dmitri-lytov.html

It says this on socionics.ibc.com.ua ----

Physics of Consciousness Boukalov A.V. Conscience and the Universe - It is shown that the universal vacuum if viewed as a conglomerate of relativist fields may be described as a giant computing system that controls movement of micro-particles and macro-bodies (planets, stars, etc.) Alike physical processes run in semiconductor crystals of modern computers used for construction of artificial intelligence systems. As an analogue of macro-computer, the Universe in total inevitably possesses attributes of consciousness and intelligence, and its particular subsystems interact with human consciousness and find their interpretation within the framework of religious systems and beliefs. Key words: consciousness, physical vacuum, computer, computations, religion. --Rmcnew (talk) 01:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Source: http://www.socionics.ibc.com.ua/ejpsy/psy_0412.html#top --Rmcnew (talk) 15:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hermeticism connection to Periodic Table of the Elements

It says this on www.wpi.edu ----

With the fall of Rome, much of the early work of alchemists was lost for Europe allowing the Arab form of alchemy to take root in European science. With the arrival of the Moors in Spain, came their alchemical knowledge as well as Islam. Arab alchemists are credited with the first practice of modern scientific method, as they were the first to bring structure to the study of nature’s chemical makeup. In the eight century C.E., the scientist Jabir Ibn Hayyan took the classic elements and expanded the system into a table of 7 elements and chemical processes, becoming the father of the medieval periodic table. Islamic alchemists and medical scientists created many tools that still exist today including the first distillation apparatus. The 12th century also brought the first Arab medical schools and some of the first pharmaceutical scientists emerged based around alchemy and a motivation to create and test medicinal elixirs. Through conflict with the Holy Roman Empire, alchemy soon spread across Europe and became one of the pseudo-sciences in medieval times (Holmyard).

Source: http://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project-043009-155538/unrestricted/McAliceMQP.pdf

It says this on www.wpi.edu ----

The evolution of empirical scientific thought began to replace abstract speculation. The motivating factors of prolonging and improving life are what still drive doctors, pharmacists and scientists today. Medieval alchemy became known as “hermetic science” because of its connection to the surviving work of the Egyptians, The Emerald Tablet. Many works emerged on how to prolong human life, find immortality, and create compounds to improve one’s health.

Source: http://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project-043009-155538/unrestricted/McAliceMQP.pdf

Socionics connection to hindu tattwas and chakras

It says on socionics.org ---

Dmitri Lytov -(За соционику без ошибок, translation: For the Socionics without errors), Lytov says: [translation] "I think sooner or later, we are forced to answer the question of how socionic types correlated with central nervous system." - which implies that the Socionics is generally considered to be associated with the central nervous system, but that at this stage (or at least at the time of the article in 2001), Socionics remains a theory about information processing, which does not go into how. I think this is significant because it shows that although the exact correlation between the types and aspects of the central nervous system have not yet been established, the Socionics elements have always been considered to be processes carried out by the central nervous system.

http://socionics.org/theory/Default.aspx?load=lytov_mistakes.html

It says on donaldtyson.com ---

The tattwas or tattvas are primal energies that underlie the five elements of Hindu philosophy -- akasha or akasa (spirit), tejas (fire), apas (water), vayu (air) and prithivi (earth). The term tattwas means realities or states of being. How they found their way into the magic system of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn would be interesting to know, since most of the techniques of this Order were Western in origin, but they formed an essential part of Golden Dawn training in meditation, visualization, clairvoyance, consecration of instruments, making telesmatic images, and other aspects of the Golden Dawn system.

Source: http://www.donaldtyson.com/tattwas.html

It says on thelemicgoldendawn.net ---

The five Tattwas are Eastern symbols for the five primary elemental qualities in Nature. In the West, they naturally correspond with the five so-called Aristotelian Elements of Magickal Philosophy. They also correspond with the Elemental Sephiroth on the Qabalistic Tree of Life.

Source: http://thelemicgoldendawn.net/zelator/tattwasinstruction.htm

It says on golden-dawn.blogspot.com ---

The tattwas flow in regular rotation throughout the nervous system of the human body. exactly as in the Universe. “As above, so Below.” (Emerald tablet of Hermes)

Source: http://golden-dawn.blogspot.com/2009/02/golden-dawn-tattwas-their-little-known.html

It says on socionics.ru ---

According to T.N. Prokofieva, the subject of Socionics is a "study of the processes of information exchange rights with the world and their impact on the psyche." It is therefore important Socionics, having studied the energy-centers, to draw parallels between these ancient teachings and the young science socionics. Moreover, the study of this topic to determine the correspondence between the features and functions socionic awakened centers. In the future, this matter will give a new clue to the study of psychological, socionic and health problems of man, will open a new approach to study the causes of diseases.

1. 1. The lowest chakra - root (basal), or Muladhara ( "mule" - root "adhara - support).This chakra is considered as a link between the physical and subconscious worlds. It is located in the coccyx. Manages the processes of purification of the body and corresponds to the sacral nerve plexus. Its endocrine gland is the prostate is associated with male sex organs, rectum and colon. Of the organs of perception and action conform to her nose (sense of smell) and legs. When unbalance the Muladhara Chakra there hemorrhoids, constipation, sciatica, prostatitis, an inflammation of the ovaries ... Indeed, the Muladhara chakra corresponds to the primary element (Tattva) earth, the planet Saturn ... The most relevant Muladhara chakra socionic functions - business logic (P).

Source: (origional) http://www.socionics.ru/chakry.htm

Sources that show the links between socionics and various esoteric theories and yet are not considered reliable enough to include as sources on the socionics wikipedia page article

Dmitri Lytov - "So, Augusta created a framework of socionics. But it needed a reform. The necessity of a reform became obvious in the last years of perestroika (1989 – 1991). Although official psychology was still under strong influence of the official ideology, more and more Western psychological books came to Russia, were translated and published. In the beginning, there were only few authors – Eric Berne, Sigmund Freud, Erich Fromm, Carl Jaspers. But from now on socionics had to compete with other trends in psychology, because Soviet (and later post-Soviet) psychology became pluralistic. Two researchers from Kiev, Victor Gulenko and Alexander Bukalov, reformed socionics: they defined its subject and methodology, and created its terminology, which is used until now. Due to their activity, Kiev (Ukraine) became an “informal capital” of the socionics." http://www.psihologia.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1503&sid=f39af7defe85e5b10864a55b2aac7381 --Rmcnew (talk) 22:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Dmitri Lytov - “Informational approach” (Alexander Bukalov, Olga Karpenko, Vladimir Ermak and others, and on the other hand - the alleged “Antisocionics” of Shiyan). Its adherents refer to socionics types as “types of information metabolism.” Moreover, they consider this concept not only applicable to the human psyche, but – in a more global sense – to “information” in general. It is significant that these ideas are extremely similar to some eccentric views, but also to synergetics (the theory of self-organizing systems), having recently sprouted from the depths of cybernetics. Unfortunately, very little is known scientifically about the relation of socionics with synergetics and, in a broader sense, with cybernetics. There is also the matter that the Kiev international institute of socionics is highly sympathetic to a number of esoteric approaches, rejected by the scientific world. http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/articles/24685-information-metabolism-dmitri-lytov.html --Rmcnew (talk) 22:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Rick Delong - After Aleksandr Bukalov established the International Institute of Socionics in Kiev, Ukraine, some rivalry or differences of opinion arose between Augusta and the group in Kiev, or perhaps with Bukalov himself. Augusta came to the conferences for several years, then stopped coming as her health worsened. Perhaps she felt marginalized by the socionics community. In fact, two volumes of her works were published without her approval by someone else, and she apparently did not receive any royalties from book sales. Now a pensioner, Augusta lived a very poor life like almost all elderly people in the former Soviet Union after its collapse. Emissaries from Kiev and Moscow schools of socionics would collect donations and bring them to her in person to help her subsist. In her final years Augusta became involved in mysticism, which drew criticism from many socionists. - http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Aushra_Augusta
I.P. Mameneva - Analytical Psychology Kameneva I.P. Psychical Energy: Symbols and Metamorphoses - C.G.Jung's ideas on psychical energy are considered in the context of his psychoanalytical experience set forth in his work Libido, Its Metamorphoses and Symbols. Symbols of psychical energy indicate the direction of its movement from the mother to other objects and images, which in general reminds dynamics of Kundalini energy in Tantra Yoga. In A.Augustinavichiute's model the scheme of informational metabolism of each type determines specifics of its energetic potential and in separate cases also aptitude towards certain esoteric practices. Key words: symbols, consciousness, unconscious, archetypes, psychical energy (libido), system of Chakras, psychical functions, informational metabolism, energetic metabolism, mental loop, vital loop, socionics. http://www.socionics.ibc.com.ua/ejpsy/psy_0612.html
Rick Delong - Aushra Augusta, the founder of socionics, was an ILE, and this has been decisive for the field's development. Augusta discovered a logical system and formulated its key principles, but left much work undone. After her main period of work on socionics, she drifted into esoterism, and I know nothing about her post-socionics development - only that it is outside the realm of contemporary socionics. For most ILEs, the search is never over. - http://socionist.blogspot.com/2007/03/typing-religions-teachings-and_3955.html

Rick Delong - Augusta was the kind of person who broadcasted her insights far and wide, and I think she would have run around saying, "look, these ancient texts are saying the same thing I've been saying!" She was not shy at all about discussing possible connections between socionics and chakras, though her ideas were purely speculative. - http://socionist.blogspot.com/2009/03/development-of-english-language.html --Rmcnew (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Dmitri Lytov - In 1980—1995 socionics existed as a "club of adherents" outside the official psychology. Groups of socionists appeared in different cities of the Soviet Union, but this was not enough to make socionics recognized by official psychologists. On the one hand, such isolation from psychologists positively influenced socionics: it developed without Marxist-Leninist stereotypes that overloaded Soviet psychological works of that time. On the other hand, such isolation created an illusion among many socionists that socionics were not a part of psychology, it rather were “a new science” with its own methods, subject etc. This was a dangerous trend: there was a real danger that socionics would turn into something esoteric, mystical. http://www.socioniko.net/en/articles/lytovs-intro2.html
Olga Tangemann - The associative model of a human psyche is based on the model of the informational metabolism and psychoanalytic concepts, in which components of personality, socionic functions and colors of the chakras are considered as a dialectic interaction and expression of psychic energy. A human psyche seeks the harmony and balance between the mind and soul, between the physical and psychic components of personality. Traditional socionics study informational metabolism of a person and does not pay enough attention to the dynamic processes within the psyche and without those the informational metabolism could not be fully understood and explained. The Butterfly model (the associative model) of a human psyche is aimed partly to fill the gap in our understanding of a human psyche from the perspective of psychodynamics as well as to proclaim the indissoluble unity of the information and energy processes within the psyche from the perspective of psychology, socionics, philosophy and esoterics. http://www.socionics.ibc.com.ua/ejpsy/psy_09_1.html
Dmitri Lytov -(За соционику без ошибок, translation: For the Socionics without errors), Lytov says: [translation] "I think sooner or later, we are forced to answer the question of how socionic types correlated with central nervous system." - which implies that the Socionics is generally considered to be associated with the central nervous system, but that at this stage (or at least at the time of the article in 2001), Socionics remains a theory about information processing, which does not go into how. I think this is significant because it shows that although the exact correlation between the types and aspects of the central nervous system have not yet been established, the Socionics elements have always been considered to be processes carried out by the central nervous system. - http://socionics.org/theory/Default.aspx?load=lytov_mistakes.html
Alexander Bukalov -Physics of Consciousness Boukalov A.V. Conscience and the Universe - It is shown that the universal vacuum if viewed as a conglomerate of relativist fields may be described as a giant computing system that controls movement of micro-particles and macro-bodies (planets, stars, etc.) Alike physical processes run in semiconductor crystals of modern computers used for construction of artificial intelligence systems. As an analogue of macro-computer, the Universe in total inevitably possesses attributes of consciousness and intelligence, and its particular subsystems interact with human consciousness and find their interpretation within the framework of religious systems and beliefs. Key words: consciousness, physical vacuum, computer, computations, religion. --Rmcnew (talk) 01:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC) http://www.socionics.ibc.com.ua/ejpsy/psy_0412.html#top http://www.socionics.ibc.com.ua/ejpsy/psy_0412.html#top
Rick Delong - Most socionists would agree that socionics is not a hard science like physics or chemistry, since it has no purely quantitative formulation. Its methodology is more on par with the social or soft sciences like sociology and psychology. At the same time it makes rather specific predictions unlike, for example, Freudian psychology. It therefore occupies an intermediate zone known as protoscience. http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Socionics_as_science --Rmcnew (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Refutations by Rick Delong (Everything above is a response to these)

REFUTATION: if you look up "synergetics" in Wikipedia, you get a disambiguation page. If you look синергетика up in the Russian Wikipedia, you get a lengthy article that roughly corresponds to the second meaning of synergetics in the Eng. Wikipedia -- that is, "Synergetics (Haken), a school of thought on thermodynamics and other systems phenomena developed by Hermann Haken". In fact, the Russian article says (I translate): "A definition of the term 'synergetics' that is close to the modern understanding, was introduced by Herman Haken in 1977 in his book Synergetics." A cursory look at Bukalov's article "Феномен квантования информационного пространства коллектива" (found through Google, fifth result) reveals that the "synergetics" he mentions (once) in his article is of the kind discussed in the Russian article, corresponding roughly to Synergetics_(Haken). Now, take a look at that article on synergetics and compare it to the one on Hermeticism. See a link? NONE AT ALL. --Rick DeLong (talk) 19:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

REFUTATION: Your wording is very misleading here. You write "More Proof That Socionics Has a Heavy Hermetic Influence Through Synergetics." When we look into the sources, we find out from Lytov that members of the Kiev Institute of Socionics are "highly sympathetic to a number of esoteric approaches, rejected by the scientific world." If Bukalov writes that "the Universe in total inevitably possesses attributes of consciousness and intelligence, and its particular subsystems interact with human consciousness and find their interpretation within the framework of religious systems and beliefs," that does not in any way provide proof of your claim that "socionics has a heavy hermetic influence through synergetics." To support your claim, you would need to show that Bukalov's articles on the universe and its attributes of consciousness are foundational for the field of socionics. Any socionist would tell you that is NOT the case. These are his personal out-in-left-field ideas, to which most socionists would say, "whatever." To support this observation which is obvious to anyone active in socionics in Russia or Ukraine, a search of Bukalov's articles shows that the article in mention has never been cited in any other socionics articles. This check is possible through the "Citation Index" project, whose purpose is to determine the relative authority of different works on socionics, and of different socionists. Here we find a list of all of Bukalov's publications (per earlier discussion we can see that the first publication was in 1988, 8 years after Augusta's first publication where she includes the socionics symbols) arranged in order of how often they have been cited in other socionics works. The article "Consciousness and the Universe" is at line 154 with 0 citations. Now, how does that qualify as a "heavy hermetic influence" on socionics?? --Rick DeLong (talk) 18:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement of consensus (original)

All who concur with DeLong's arguments on the matter of esoterism, post here. By posting to this list, you concur with the proposed consensus that socionics is not founded on esoterism.

1. Tcaudilllg -- Tcaudilllg (talk) 23:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

All available evidence indicates socionics has no relation to esoterism. As per WP:BURDEN, esoteric content may not be admitted into the article. Tcaudilllg (talk) 23:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

How exactly does socionics' possible relation to esotericism violate WP:BURDEN? Which line(s) are you referring to? MichaelExe (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
The entire page. Specifically everything beneath Sources and all subsequent headings. All that is in reference to precisely this kind of scenario. Tcaudilllg (talk) 00:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
In relationship to the fact that wikipedia considers certain sources notable, regardless of personal opinions of editors. How come "ALL" of the esoteric sources are considered unnotable by you regardless of meeting wikipedias standards for sources? --Rmcnew (talk) 00:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
"Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them." (which brings us to WP:UNDUE) Now, are the views that of a tiny-minority? Prokofieva Tatyana herself is a reliable source (whether the page in question is or not, we've yet to decide), and she has several others working under her, but it is still one single source. We also need to consider the amount of reliable sources we've got at our disposal for socionics. We may have to bug Manning some more (but try to keep the discussion on his talk small, and redirect it to the Mediation page, preferably; this, along with the below statement of consensus should probably be there, too). MichaelExe (talk) 01:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
A disaffected person looks at this page, not knowing what socionics is about, and thinks it has something to esoterism and is pseudoscientific, like a number of other theories under Rational Skepticism (which socionics shouldn't even be under), they aren't going to give it another thought. And worse, a person who tries to use the hard work, Well they come away from looking at this page thinking that they risk their reputations from even tinkering with it. Which isn't true at all, but they'd think such. Socionics is not hard science, but it is soft science which people depend on because it makes sense to them. Hell, you can't even get a job if you can't get an appropriate score on the testing instruments they give you... and yet none of those have been proven with hard data. Just because you can't prove an Aryan Nation member isn't "evil" doesn't mean you should ignore the fact that they are a member of that organization, or that they hold extreme views. Certainly there is something in the, something words can't reach. Should we really have judged Timothy McVeigh as anything but "evil"? Do we really think Osama bin Laden is going to leave us alone if we talk nice to him? For the next two centuries we will have to endure shaky premises in cognitive science because hard facts require hundreds of millions more research hours... we would not want to defer judgment of a person's intentions and character in leu of "hard facts".
And of course there's always the problem of what happens if the prevailing soft theories turn out to be right after all.... Finally, there is the problem of the suddeness and finality of any such empirical judgment of character when it becomes possible. It would sweep the world like a wave... and no one knows what would happen. Trait theories give us opportunity to debate the meaning of evil's possible existence in leu of its final appraisal. Tcaudilllg (talk) 01:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Most soft theories are treated as "right", regardless. I wouldn't say that the theories in psychology are wrong, but they could always be improved. Also, for a disaffected person to do so, they would have to ignore the several paragraphs we have/should have about what is held as fact regarding socionics' foundation. If you want to please these types of people, start the Simple English article. Again, the article shouldn't say socionics is esoteric or a pseudoscience, but that X says it might be. MichaelExe (talk) 01:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Now that's thinking I can respect. ;)
If you want to put her in there, that's fine. But it is necessary to state the opinion of Augustinaviciute's institute as told to us by DeLong. Something to the effect of "Augustinaviciute's students agree that socionics as a discipline is unrelated to esoterism." Tcaudilllg (talk) 01:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. And the assumption here inserted by Tcaud are false. Tcaud should be posting sources, as it is he is just inserting his opinion on things without having any sort of back. And I should also point out that Tcauds statement "the opinion of Augustinaviciute's institute as told to us by DeLong." is a white lie. This is not the opinion of the institute, it is simply tcaud's opinion disguised and projected falsely as an another. Quote sources! --Rmcnew (talk) 19:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Prokofieva Tatyana is one lone PhD amidst a host of others who say there is no connection betwen socionics and esoterism. Aleksandre Boukalov allowed DeLong to interview him with the specific intent of conferring legitimacy onto him. DeLong has published an article in the Socionics Institute's journal. It may be that Tatyana has established an institute of her own; however, it worth noting that she was not one of Augustinaviciute's original students; Boukalov and Gulenko both were. The Kiev Institute remains the leading authority in socionics and has the last word on all matters with respect to Augustinaviciute's legacy. The Institute has given DeLong permission to speak on its behalf, so if DeLong says Tatyana's talking out of her ass, then Institute must be saying the same. (on matters of his opinion he is respectly stating thus, but as he has stated the esoterism issue is not a matter of opinion to him). Tcaudilllg (talk) 01:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
So "X says it might be, but Rick DeLong disagrees." You can't deny views simply by disagreeing; even in the psychology article, it states: "Criticisms of psychology often come from perceptions that it is a "fuzzy" science. Philosopher Thomas Kuhn's 1962 critique implied psychology overall was in a pre-paradigm state, lacking the agreement on overarching theory found in mature sciences such as chemistry and physics. Psychologists and philosophers have addressed the issue in various ways.".
I see that his translations were published, but what's your source for "The Institute has given DeLong permission to speak on its behalf"? MichaelExe (talk) 01:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
DeLong's website. http://www.socionics.us/interviews/conference_2006.shtml
If you'll notice, the third pic down features Rick speaking, with Boukalov sitting at the table next to him.
Also, DeLong apparently has access to Boukalov that the rest of us don't. He was able to obtain an article by Boukalov in its original .PDF form, direct from Boukalov himself, which I translated. (it's one of the sources for the Model B section)
Notice that Tatanya doesn't speak about esoterism at the conference. Nor does anyone else. She got her spurs by studying type masking/distortion. Tcaudilllg (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Funny, Tcaudilllg wrote and argued this much when he could have simply just made a small statement that Rick Delong has a PHD and left it purely up to that. Strange. --Rmcnew (talk) 01:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Uh, I don't think DeLong has a PhD, does he? Tcaudilllg (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
It sounded to me by what you were inferring that he has a PHD, or at the very least giving Rick Delong a higher than normal status that could be rightfully questioned about as fast as the sudden placement of a stray Gulenko blog source, that usually ends up in the wikipedia article as an unappropiate replacement for statements that have sources with more credibility according to wikipedia standards. --Rmcnew (talk) 02:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I am continueing my argumentation at this link : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Socionics#Debate_against_the_claim_from_some_editors_who_want_to_discredit_the_Moscow_Socionics_School_by_claiming_the_techniques_there_are_fringe_compared_to_other_schools

2. I support this: "socionics is not founded on esoterism." The wording "founded on" is important, since "connected to" can mean anything you want. By "socionics is not founded on esoterism" I mean that esoterism and mysticism did not contribute significantly or even perceptibly to the creation of socionics theory. --Rick DeLong (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

General comments on article

I have made extensive improvements to the article. Please compare the histories to see what I have done. I've added new sources and removed misleading or incoherent language, redundancies, original research, etc. I don't remember the article being this poor when I made contributions in the past. Some sections are still excrutiatingly incoherent (quite a few paragraphs, actually) or plain inaccurate, such as the following text:

"These functions process information at varying levels of competency and act as personalities in their own right. A function can recognize its likeness in another person and can make judgments about the likeness' competence or incompetence. The capacity of functions to "size up" each other gives rise to a theory of predictable reactions and impressions, called intertype relations."

Huh? This is hardly an accurate description of Augusta's work The Socion, which is provided as a reference for the preceding text!

I created a "history of socionics" section and gathered all the critique into a new section that I moved to the end of the article. I recommend incorporating critique of socionics into the article in the same way as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator article; that is, in the initial few paragraphs and in a critical section towards the end of the article after the theory itself has been expounded. --Rick DeLong (talk) 07:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It's the way people talk about the functions on the the16types forum: "I use X function for X and X and X." And of course how exactly do the relations work? Simply put, supervision works because the strength of the supervisor is a weakness of the supervisee, and only the function itself can make that judgment. (or am I wrong?) It's also coherent with Boukalov's "functions of consciousness" hypothesis, which maintains that human consciousness is an effect of the experiential dimensions of all the functions cooperating with each other. (I'll refer you to that source).
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&langpair=ru%7Cen&u=http://www.socionics.ibc.com.ua/t/as696.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.32.62.73 (talk) 18:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Maybe it just needs to be cited from "On the Function of Consciousness in Socionics" rather than from Augusta's works. (I didn't mean to imply that she cited it; I just didn't offer a citation). And you're right, it can be moved to the Model B section. Tcaudilllg (talk) 15:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Additional improvements have been made, with some incoherent language or original research/speculation removed, and some new sources added. I apologize if I don't know all the rules of Wikipedia citations. That's it for now, but there's more to be done. --Rick DeLong (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Approval of Edits

I approve of the edits. It says basically as much as was said before and the article is conveying socionics the way it should, in my opinion. --Rmcnew (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I approve. As it stands, most of socionics appears to be presented. Although missing some details on subtypes (which deserve only a modest mention in this article, and rightfully their own article entirely), I don't see any signs of bias at all. Very evenhanded. Tcaudilllg (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Gulenko Article

I'm working on an article about Viktor Gulenko on my user space. I invite everyone to help me improve it for eventual publication in the main article space. Tcaudilllg (talk) 21:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

That reminds me: we need to restore the type articles, using only reliable sources this time. Tcaudilllg (talk) 00:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
All that can be imported from the russian socionics article. Reliable sources can be found there. --Rmcnew (talk) 16:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm putting the Viktor Gulenko article in the main article space. It is in need of work but has an overall structure. Tcaudilllg (talk) 18:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
It deserves its own article. I would just link from the main article through the portal and be sure to put [ [-] ] where Gulenkos name is mentioned. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Gregory Reinin also deserves his own seperate article to describe his theory and mathematics. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement of consensus

By posting to this list, you concur with the proposed consensus that socionics sources, in relation to esoteric sources or not, may be freely placed in the article so long as they meet wikipedias standards for verifiable sources. You also agree to never inappropriately remove portions of the socionics article that are supported by noteworthy sources, and for insufficent reasons.

Agree to consensus:

  1. Rmcnew -- --Rmcnew (talk) 23:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  2. I obviously agree with the policies; there shouldn't be a need or consensus, tbh. If any exceptions are to be made, they should be by an Admin (Manning). MichaelExe (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  3. Rick DeLong. Of course. However, within any sphere of knowledge sources may be found that make claims that are not accepted in the community as a whole. The danger with this consensus is that McNew will misrepresent the field of socionics by prominently quoting articles that are not regarded as highly important to socionics theory to create an impression that is not representative of the views of most socionists. Therefore, I recommend modelling the English article on socionics after the Russian one. --Rick DeLong (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  4. I agree with modelling the article after the russian one, which is what I was doing before tcaud went crazy with the reverts and ad hominen attacks on my character again. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  5. Rmcnew has clearly not been abiding by these standards, but I have never done anything differently when I was taking part in this argument. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 23:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  6. Romolampkin. I agree with the consensus. Romolampkin (talk) 02:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  7. I object with being singled out and also agree that no one had done anything differently, because no one was actually abideing by those standards untill I took it upon myself to find reliable sources, which took a while considering the vast number of unreliable sources that could be found versus the small number of reliable ones. --Rmcnew (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Disagree to consensus:

  1. XXXXXXX

As per WP:BURDEN and WP:VERIFIABILITY, origional reasearch and portions of the article may be removed when there are no viable sources backing the material. Any content of any sort concerning socionics may be admitted into the article taken that there are reliable and verifiable sources to that effect, regardless of viewpoint of the editors, and according to official wikipedia policy. Editors should not remove content that is supported by sources worthy of wikipedias standards. --Rmcnew (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC) [edited because the consensus agree as first written here by tcaudilllig is against wikipedia policy]

From WP:NPOV: "Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors."
"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views must be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material." MichaelExe (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
You edited my talk post! That's against the rules. Tcaudilllg (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
fix'd. And don't cry about the rules now; you've already got personal attacks against you. MichaelExe (talk) 23:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
What is happening here is contrary to the purposes of Wikipedia. Wikipedia was intended as a way for people to get reliable information about topics important to them without becoming confused by pseudoscientific arguments. That Rmcnew is exalting those very views in this article at the expense of scientific opinion warps the project's purpose, and you are helping him do it, MichaelExe.
Do you see what you are doing, MichaelExe? By exalting that woman's PhD., you are arguing that pseudoscience is science. And you are insisting that Wikipedia's rules demand her pseudoscientific work to be recognized as such. But that is not so. It only reflects that your interpretation of the rules is itself limited and flawed. Tcaudilllg (talk) 00:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
So long as you keep insisting that socionics is a science as known to western science, you are going to be hitting your head against the wall. What socionics considers science is not, by any means, western science. Stop trying to fight this fact. --Rmcnew (talk) 00:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
No one who understood science would make the claims you have. Science is objective and universal: that's why it's science. Tcaudilllg (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Than a scientific mind would, from a standpoint of objectivity, discern that socionic methods as they are derived from sources do not meet expected scientific standards according to the west. In fact, socionics simply just does not meet expected universal and objective standards anywhere. That is it, period. No more should be said. --Rmcnew (talk) 00:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Ridiculous. What's not scientific about categorical logic? If anything's unscientific, it's the post hoc assertion that just because socionics was preceded and deals with similar material as Hermetics, it's the same thing. That does not reflect critical thinking.
OK it's the same KIND of thing (categorical logic again) but it's not the SAME thing. It's not the same model of categorical logic... though it may well be the last. Tcaudilllg (talk) 04:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
It is not that categorical logic is unscientific, it is that you can not just use categorical logic alone and expect what you derive from it to be scientific. For example Hermeticism philosophies do indeed use categorical logic, which is how it derived the various axioms within the philosophy. Yet, Hermeticism, similar to socionics, when you follow the kybalion has also borrowed from eastern philosophy. So, it is not a matter of whether or not socionics is hermeticism, it is that socionics is following after the same sort of outdated scientific methods that shaped hermeticism. It is the usage of the same outdated science techniques, coupled with comparisons to things in ways that are pseudoscientific. It is the same sort of science that was used in the 17th century. This is the 21st century last time I checked. This means that socionics is based on a science format that came into existance 4 centuries ago. You are not going to make anything scientific out of it according to modern standards. Maybe socionics could work for someone while simply functioning as that persons philosophy, but calling it a science is rediculous. But if a PHD says that sonionics is scientific, despite just spouting some pseudoscientific or protoscientific garbage that came out of some comparison between Hinduism or the periodic table, it could be said that PHDs in socionics theory have called pseudoscientific or protoscientific things scientific. Yes, it makes socionics look rediculous. But it is the supposed PHDs in socionics that are making it that way, and that is not a reason to misrepresent socionics as something scientific according to western or modern standards. It is a complete waste of time. --Rmcnew (talk) 13:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
You could say the same thing about analytic psychology, but people just say it's soft, not hard.
I'll say this: there isn't a single competent system of categorical logic which can match socionics. I mean my god, I could take any single sentence in this talk, or another coherent sentence, and show it to be filled with information aspects. And we could actually chart the progression of our thoughts according to Gulenko's rules. Even when such a categorization of reality elements is made by cognitive psychologists, they are going to be doing nothing more than reinventing socionics! It's a waste of time not to believe in it already. The Supreme Categorical System has already been identified... let's illuminate it! Tcaudilllg (talk) 00:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

To all parties - I've been tied up elsewhere on an Arbcom case so I have only just come back on board to review where you guys are up to. Given that debate has managed to spread across the mediation page, this talk page and my user talk page I have some catching up to do.

As a general rule there are WAY too many acts of incivility going on. Now as I am acting as a mediator in this case it is customary for me to NOT use any of my administrative tools (blocking, etc). Should I feel it necessary I will recruit another admin to conduct an impartial review.

PS - MichaelExe - thank you for your faith in my godlike admin powers, but I am in no way authorised to grant any kind of exceptions to policy. I'm a janitor not a governor :) Manning (talk) 03:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the mediation has failed. I don't see the point in continuing to discuss the article from rmcnew, who will not be moved from his position. It's not worth discussing anymore. Like you said, you don't have power over policy. What we need right now is a formal interpretation of policy, because the only issue is whether or not the view of that fringe minority should be represented in this particular article. Tcaudilllg (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I am going to point out a specific statement by tcaud here, a statement which I believe is actually a 'white lie' intended for tcaud to get his way with the article and is not really backed by anything.

Tcaudilllg - because the only issue is whether or not the view of that fringe minority should be represented in this particular article

I disagree. I think tcaud feels the mediation has failed, because he simply has not been able to get his sole way with the article. Therefore, he has resort to telling white lies in order to get his way. Calling legitimate methods in socionics theory 'fringe' is a white lie. And I won't be moved from my position, because I don't have a position on the matter. Therefore, there is no position to be moved from. Further, there are no fringe minorities in socionics, only socionists who have been doing alot of comparisons to new age, hindu, and alternative theories. Even PHDs in the field, such as Bukalov, have been allowing to be published speculative esoteric articles and have themselves been making comparisons between esoteric, religious, and socionics theory. Tcaud has no justification for any of his actions in relation to wanting to remove things that he finds embarassing about legitimate socionics theory from the article, which is what I believe is his real motive for wanting to do so. The material he has been removing is supported by credible sources and deserve a place in the article. He has a right to quit making unnecessary reverts for insufficent reasons. I believe that Tcauds claim that these view are a 'fringe minority' is a 'white lie' and manipulative attempt by him to get his way with the article, therefore leaving tcaud with an unsupported position. Credible PHD and peer reviewed sources deserve a place regardless of tcaud's opinion on the matter. --Rmcnew (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
If I don't get a sense that someone is listening to me within a week, I'm going to Arbcom by myself to get a judgment. Tcaudilllg (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Just go to Arbcom right now ... you say you are going to do it. Why wait? --Rmcnew (talk) 16:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

From [17]: "In 1980—1995 socionics existed as a "club of adherents" outside the official psychology. Groups of socionists appeared in different cities of the Soviet Union, but this was not enough to make socionics recognized by official psychologists. On the one hand, such isolation from psychologists positively influenced socionics: it developed without Marxist-Leninist stereotypes that overloaded Soviet psychological works of that time. On the other hand, such isolation created an illusion among many socionists that socionics were not a part of psychology, it rather were “a new science” with its own methods, subject etc. This was a dangerous trend: there was a real danger that socionics would turn into something esoteric, mystical." I understand that this does not represent a claim that socionics is esoteric, but the thought has been present for a while. I think it's worth noting, if only for socionics' history. It seems we don't even have a section devoted to its history. MichaelExe (talk) 00:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Part of the esotericism and mysticism that overloaded socionics theory during the time that was noted is exactly what we have been discussing. Comparisons to hinduism, new age theory adaptations, dabbling in the occult, etc. It is still going on in socionics theory. It is notable as a part of history and the culture surrounding socionics. Whether or not there is anything practical to come from it for just everyone is debatable, but esotericism and mysticism are indeed present in socionics theory. --Rmcnew (talk) 03:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This phrase is a recurring problem: "Part of the esotericism and mysticism that overloaded socionics theory during the time ..." Socionics theory as a body of central postulates was never influenced perceptibly by esoterism and mysticism. It is correct to say, "many practicioners of socionics have dabbled in mysticism." It is incorrect to say, "socionics theory was overloaded with mysticism." If a socionist writes, "hey, maybe the socionic functions correspond to certain chakras!", that does not mean that "socionics is heavily influenced by mysticism." --Rick DeLong (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Rick Delong- If a socionist writes, "hey, maybe the socionic functions correspond to certain chakras!", that does not mean that "socionics is heavily influenced by mysticism."

If a socionists writes in "Mentology Kiev Socionics Institute version 1995" ... "hey, alexander bukalov has shown in experiments that there are power centers in the human body" after "making comparisons to chakras", that shows that experimentation with such things is fairly widespread. However you attempt to word it, calling it mysticism or what not, or counterwise making apologetic statements to dodge calling socionics mysticism, the proof is in the pudding. Socionics should rightly be called anything other than a science. Even calling it mysticism would be closer than calling socionics science. That is my opinion on the matter at least. --Rmcnew (talk) 18:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Socionics/Archive_1&oldid=1137192482"