Talk:Socionics/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Chakras - Socionics fun, if not useless - and also a part of a legitimate socionist attempt to understand the central nervous system

One of the articles (http://www.socionik.ru/tips/18.htm) referenced by Rmcnew on chakras and socionics apparently says: [translation]"But chakra, forming the exterior - is sotsionicheskie fun, if not useless. But their relationship with disease characteristics - the way to the new medicine. [...] It is based on the hypothesis [...]"

On further examination of this article, I am even less convinced than before! But at least some people can get some fun out of the chakras for the time-being. RudieBoy (talk) 23:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It is called lack of objectivity on the source articles. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Aushra Augusta's position on Socionics, the central nervous system

In this article (http://socionics.org/theory/Default.aspx?load=lytov_mistakes.html) by Dmitriy 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. (It should be noted here that most of the chakras have nothing to do with the central nervous system, and they certainly do not use the term "central nervous system", which is nowadays understood to be something far more complex than simply a "third eye".

I went ahead and bolded some significant statements here that have to do with chakras and their relationship to socionics. I italicized some statements which are unsubstantiated in light of actual evidence contrary to the statement. The Chakras are associated with the central nervous system. --Rmcnew (talk) 22:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Do not edit my comments. You insist that the chakras were an inspiration behind Socionics, and yet Socionics has always been a theory about information processing first and foremost - any attempts to explain information processing in terms of the central nervous system came afterwards. The chakras have always considered the brain in its own element, not the body's central processing unit. Augusta's The Dual Nature of Man does not even mention the brain as a part of the body associated with a particular information element - a pretty damning difference. Also, while Augusta provided evidence that dual relationships were more long-lasting and more common than any other relationship (and hence, to a degree, proved the information elements and Socionics theory) she never proved any connection to the chakras. RudieBoy (talk) 04:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Lytov's article also says: [translation]"Ausra also expressed a hypothesis about how they are linked to the cerebral hemispheres [1]" - the citation references Augusta's book The Dual Nature of Man, which was the first book Augusta published on Socioncis, in 1978. If this was Augusta's hypothesis at the time, and in light of the absence of any evidence to suggest otherwise, there is nothing to indicate that Augusta was inspired by anything "esoteric" in nature. RudieBoy (talk) 01:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This article (http://socionics.org/theory/Default.aspx?load=main.html) says that: [translation]"However, the first as a notable success in the study of human psyche have been achieved only in the early 20 th century and linked it with the name of a famous psychologist Sigmund Freud. He suggested that the human psyche as a sort of structure, in which he distinguished several levels: consciousness (ego), predsoznanie (superego) and region unconscious (Id). He described how these levels interact."

Does anyone have any proof that Freud was involved in "mysticism"? Jung used the Ego, SuperEgo and Id concepts in his work, but redefined them somewhat.

Also from the article: [translation]"But a real breakthrough in this area occurred only in the 70's, when Jung's works are in the field of attention of the Lithuanian researcher (the teacher, an economist for Education) Ausra Augustinavichyute. Her many years concerned the question: "Why if you want people to be kind, sensitive, good-humored - in their communion is unclear where there irritability, malignity." Carefully examined and revised the provisions of Jung, as well as works by famous psychologists E. Krechmer, A. Licko, and the theory of informational metabolism A. Kempinski, Ausra with the help of special characters, build a model of the psyche of each of the 16 types. Based on this model, it shows how these types will interact with each other (it should be noted that Ausra was unaware of the existence of tipovedeniya Myers Briggs, but also concluded that the type 16).

So Augusta was not inspired by the Myers Briggs typology, and there is no reference whatsoever that mysticism played a role in the creation of Socionics theory. RudieBoy (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I would stop now while you are still ignorant. If you keep going with your research into this, you are just going to prove to yourself and everyone that socionics is Hindu Philosophy and that the connection to Chakras and esotericism is substantiated. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Augusta's research into the central nervous system, and the esoteric belief of chakras [which are associated with the central nervous system]

Lytov states very plainly in this source article: http://socionics.org/theory/Default.aspx?load=lytov_mistakes.html) "I think sooner or later, we are forced to answer the question of how socionic types correlated with central nervous system."

The chakras are substantively a part of the central nervous system according to esoteric reasoning.

Source: http://www.healer.ch/Chakras-e.html

""The chakras are not physical. They are aspects of consciousness in the same way that the auras are aspects of consciousness. The chakras are more dense than the auras, but not as dense as the physical body. They interact with the physical body through two major vehicles, the endocrine system and the nervous system. Each of the seven chakras is associated with one of the seven endocrine glands, and also with a group of nerves called a plexus. Thus, each chakra can be associated with particular parts of the body and particular functions within the body controlled by that plexus or that endocrine gland associated with that chakra.

It this source article it states: http://www.aryabhatt.com/occult/kundalini/chakras7.htm

Harmonizing the chakras implies an ancient chime of psychic anatomy that corresponds with our western physical, or gross/macroscopic anatomy, of the central and autonomic nervous systems. Consider the following correlative analysis. Central Nervous System Divided into brain and spinal cord. Brain: Cerebrum and cerebellum. A midline sagittal slice resembles the fetus, symbol of latent growth, the neophyte, or Sahasrara padma - i.e., full potential yet to be released. Spinal cord: Averages eighteen inches in length. Eighteen is the Hindu number of completeness. In the Mahabharata we note the eighteen days of the Great Battle, the eighteen battalions that fought, and the eighteen chapters of the Bhagavad-Gita ("Song of God"). When the spinal cord is dissected out of the vertebral column, along with the brain cone, it resembles a serpent (Kundalini), while the cavity of the spinal canal is sushumna. The spinal cord transmits sensory (afferent) messages to the brain and receives motor (afferent) signals from the brain down its tracts to produce changes in effectors (i.e., muscles and glands). The sensory nerve tracts of the spinal cord represent Ida (receptive, passive) functions while motor nerve tracts down the spinal cord are equivalent to Pingala (projective, active) functions.

Just because the chakras are partially concerned with the central nervous system does not mean the chakras are connected to socionics. RudieBoy (talk) 04:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Carl Jung and his theory influenced by experience with religion and Hindu philosophy

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Jung

Following World War I, Jung became a worldwide traveler, facilitated by his wife's inherited fortune as well as the funds he received through psychiatric fees, book sales, and honoraria. He visited Northern Africa shortly after, and New Mexico and Kenya in the mid-1920s. In 1938, he delivered the Terry Lectures, Psychology and Religion, at Yale University. It was at about this stage in his life that Jung visited India. His experience in India led him to become fascinated and deeply involved with Hindu philosophy, helping him form key concepts, including integrating spirituality into daily life and appreciation of the unconscious.

Jung's work on himself and his patients convinced him that life has a spiritual purpose beyond material goals. Our main task, he believed, is to discover and fulfill our deep innate potential, much as the acorn contains the potential to become the oak, or the caterpillar to become the butterfly. Based on his study of Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Gnosticism, Taoism, and other traditions, Jung perceived that this journey of transformation, which he called individuation, is at the mystical heart of all religions. It is a journey to meet the self and at the same time to meet the Divine. Unlike Sigmund Freud, Jung thought spiritual experience was essential to our well-being.[17]

Another source: http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=462

Carl Jung's systematizer, Jacobi, almost completely ignored or concealed his debt to Indian concepts, perhaps fearing Eastern references would erode scientific respectability. It was left to Dr. Coward to bring forth the facts. He writes: "Jung himself clearly credits karma theory with the filling in of his notion of archetypes..." Jung lectured in the 1930's on Patanjali's Yoga Sutras, on kundalini yoga and the Tibetian Book of the Dead. "Concerning Rebirth" was his 1940 lecture on the Buddha's experience of a long sequence of rebirths.

As the years passed, Jung accepted more and more the traditional Eastern view that something survives death and is reborn. His own dreams became his best personal assurance of rebirth. Still, he never gave up the Western notion of a finite, limited ego. As Dr. Coward notes, "To Jung, the Indian understanding seemed a great advance on the common Western view that a person's character is the particular admixture of blessings or curses which fate or the gods bestowed on the child at birth."

Jung himself said that his theory was made from empirical observation that he himself had made:

   This article (http://socionics.org/theory/default.aspx?load=jung_types.html) quotes Jung as saying: [translation]"Critics generally fall into error, believing that they were the type, so to speak, the product of a free imagination, and had been forcibly imposed on the empirical evidence. I must stress that my typology is the result of many years of practical experience." Also:

   [translation]"I was almost with reproach asked why I am saying exactly the four functions, no more and no less. The fact that they were exactly four, turned primarily purely empirically. The four functions are a kind of four parties, the horizon, so as arbitrary as it is needed. I must admit one thing: to me for anything you do not want to treat their psychological research expeditions without the compass, and begs not to human reason, that everyone is in love with their own ideas, but because the objective fact that the system is thus a measurement and targeting."

   The article goes onto show what empirical observations Jung made when drawing up his typology.RudieBoy (talk) 03:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Esoteric Links reverted back on account of fraudulent deceitful argumentation

The people who removed the esoteric links article first removed the legitimate verifiable sources, claiming that source articles which blatenly discuss the links between socionics, chakras, hindu philosophy, and a russian article by Bukalov where he states that socionics has a direct correspondance to amerindian cosmology shows nothing, and then further claimed that everything in the socionics article section esoteric links concerning the occult was original research. This is fraudulent, non-neutral, deceitful activity and wiki vandalism and is intolerable on that basis. --Rmcnew (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Esoteric Article rereverted back once again after being erased by an individual with a non-neutral viewpoint. --Rmcnew (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Removing valid legitimate sources and claiming origional research on that basis in regard to the esoteric links article

There have been a couple of people who have insisted that because Reuben McNew at metasocion.com is the only person in english who discusses the ties socionics has to the occult, that anything concerning the occult and socionics ties is origional research. This argument is false, biased and deceitful. Especially when it is followed by removing legitimate verifiable sources to the case. It is valid to say that socionics has "strong verifiable ties" on account that bukalov himself and several other authors have written articles on the subject, and have stated that there are direct correspondences between socionics and the occult. There are several socionic articles from valid verifiable socionics websites which discuss openly chakras and hindu philosophy that have been listed openly in this article, which people have insisted on removing fraudulently and on a deceitful basis. Augusta herself was verifiably involved with mysticism. There have been valid verifiable sources listed in this article proving this. Removing the sources and the article on the esoteric links is unneutral biased behavior, and it should stop. You can not and should not suppress all aspects of a point of view that is valid and verifiable when there are sources showing this to be the case. --Rmcnew (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

j/p socionics

the point of having two columns, one for MBTI, and one for socionics typings, on the Socionics page is not so that the socionics types can be related to MBTI types. in fact, there is widespread disagreement within socionics on the issue of MBTI correlations (see DeLong, who posits a 30% dichotomy correlation, and Ganin, who posits a completely different set of correlations.

instead, as was stated in this comment by an anonymous user, which you ignored:

"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)"

the purpose is to differentiate that socionics and MBTI names do not mean the same thing and should not be taken to mean the same thing. trying to relate socionics to MBTI types as per the j/p switch is controversial and should not be taken as fact. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 06:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you are over thinking this issue. An Ne dominant with auxiliary Ti is by definition an ENTP. DeLong disagrees with MBTI on how ENTPs think and feel that's fine. We can even include his disclaimers. But that is the standard naming convention in the western world for an Ne-Ti. In exactly the same way the standard naming convention for a Ti-Ne is INTP. Socionics as a field and reliable sources within socionics are fully entitled to consider the Myers Briggs characterization of personality to be wrong. They aren't entitled to consider it non standard. In other words the overwhelming number of reliable sources Jungian typology are Myers Briggs sources. So when making statements about typology in general we have to indicate where socionics differs from mainstream typology, as part of NPOV. jbolden1517^Talk 10:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Your error is in the assumption that NeTi in MBTI means anything analogous to NeTi in socionics. While it is true that in the more common MBTI and keirseyan typologies, NeTi refers to an ENTP, it is not true that an NeTi in MBTI is the same thing as an NeTi in socionics. This is the basis behind the disagreements in correlations that Ganin and DeLong have, among other things.

This is not a dispute about the verifiable sources in MBTI, or the prevalence of MBTI as being the "standard" in western typology as opposed to socionics. What is in dispute is the relationship between socionics and MBTI; many socionists disagree that there is any relationship whatsoever. Almost all socionists, however, agree that socionics is not the same thing as MBTI and should not be considered to be the same thing.

If I can find Dmitri Lytov's writings on the matter I'll reference those as well; those describe the rather vast differences in identification between socionics and keirseyan types. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 23:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's Lytov's comparison of socionics and keirseyan types: [1] Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 23:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I would support getting rid of the MBTI names altogether, as they have nothing to do with socionics. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Untrue, and there are sources to prove it. Boukalov's findings conflict with Lytov's. (the position Ganin takes was first expressed by Boukalov; Boukalov himself discovered the introvert J/P switch). Boukalov is generally held as more reliable than Lytov, having as he does a ph.D, among other titles. (not to mention outright seniority) Tcaudilllg (talk) 00:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

DeLong and Ganin are teachers of socionics; they are not certified researchers. It would be unwise to give either of them rank undue their certified status. The opinion of the Kiev school is that MBTI deals with the same phenomena as does socionics, but models it differently. (comparatively incompletely, it must be said) Tcaudilllg (talk) 00:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

fine. fair points, although i'm unfamiliar with any work whatsoever on the issue by bukalov. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response. An NeTi comes from Jung, the common parent. It means what Jung says it means. Socionics is not free to redefine what NeTi means either in a general sense. Again the more reliable sources have a meaning for NeTi. If you want to use words in non standard ways that needs to be explicated Socionics can define things however it wants within the field but you cannot make the assertion that an ISFP is Si-Fe and not Fi-Se. It makes no difference what socionics literature says on this point, the more reliable souces have it the other way around. That's why we need to clearly seperate ISFp and ISFP. jbolden1517^Talk 01:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

why does socionics not have the right to define its own terms? that's idiocy. whatever points may be made between hypothesized relationships between socionics and MBTI are fine, but the relationship is controversial. again, the error here is that socionics is not talking about SiFe (jung functions) as an ISFP; it's instead referring to SiFe in socionics parliance. the names look confusing and are derived from a common idea, but there's no basis for saying they're the same thing. and in this case the "more reliable sources" are irrelevant because they're talking about something else entirely. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

"typically secular"

This sentence was changed by User:Rmcnew: "While typically secular socionics theory is metaphysically and philosophically a dualist one with many cosmological overtones." from "blatantly secular". "typically secular" is still a nNPOV, and the rest of the statement is unqualified. RudieBoy (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your notions that these are non-neutral points of view and unqualified, because they are legitimate metaphysical classifications. It would not be exact that say that socionics is non-dualists or monists, so they only thing left to say is that socionics is dualists, which is the correct classification. Socionics is also secular, as opposed to religious. Socionics also has cosmological overtones, since it follows after the old world practice of creating psyche's according to elemental properties. Naturally, I don't really see any valid reason to remove this statement other than personal bias. They are terms a studied metaphysician would actually use, and are valid to be used. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

"Metaphysics" is not empirically testable and hence should not be on a page about Socionics theory. The word 'valid' shouldn't even be used in the same sentence as "metaphysics" except when coupled with a negative conjuction. The word 'secular' shouldn't even be there - it is simply not relevant. Socionics isn't a theory about secularism or religion, it is not a philosophy, and when it was proposed, there were no cosmological overtones in its theory whatsoever. You have provided no evidence that Socionics was inspired by the "the old world practice of creating psyche's according to elemental properties" - however, it can be shown that Socionics theory was inspired by Jung's work and the MBTI. RudieBoy (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

As for Jung and MBTI, Jung admitted various times in his book that his material has an alchemical basis, which is cosmology. Jung also admitted to formulating his theory from Hindu Philosophy, and actually believed in reincarnation and used the word "samsara" frequently in relation to himself in one of his metaphysical books. Socionics quite obviously had a similar influence, except I would say that the hindu connections are more numerous in socionics. You can not make a confession to Jung and then make no confession to socionics in this regards. It just looks like you want to "cover up something". --Rmcnew (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant. It is worth mentioning that the Socionics functions were derived and adapted from Jung, but that is where the line is drawn. It would be acceptable for the article on Jungian functions to say that the Jungian functions were in part inspired by "Hindu philosophy" etc., if true, but the Jungian functions which inspired Augusta had none of these mystical elements remaining. It would make more sense to say that Socionics was inspired by the dictionary, because Jung used words that are found in the dictionary to describe the functions. RudieBoy (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This article (http://socionics.org/theory/default.aspx?load=jung_types.html) quotes Jung as saying: [translation]"Critics generally fall into error, believing that they were the type, so to speak, the product of a free imagination, and had been forcibly imposed on the empirical evidence. I must stress that my typology is the result of many years of practical experience." Also:

[translation]"I was almost with reproach asked why I am saying exactly the four functions, no more and no less. The fact that they were exactly four, turned primarily purely empirically. The four functions are a kind of four parties, the horizon, so as arbitrary as it is needed. I must admit one thing: to me for anything you do not want to treat their psychological research expeditions without the compass, and begs not to human reason, that everyone is in love with their own ideas, but because the objective fact that the system is thus a measurement and targeting."

The article goes onto show what empirical observations Jung made when drawing up his typology. RudieBoy (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you objections are based purely on ignorance of the subject material you are objecting to and most of your argumentation is unsubstantiated and insufficient on that basis in light of actual evidence to the contrary of what your protest. --Rmcnew (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Metaphysics cannot have any evidence because then it wouldn't be metaphysics...and hence how can you prove that metaphysics is linked to socionics other than via an assertion? It is metaphysics which is unsubstantiated and insufficent, or at least redundant. RudieBoy (talk) 01:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It is unfair to challenge RudieBoy's unfamiliarity with the subject matter. As a matter of course, it would be obvious (and is obvious, see here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/general-discussion-model/25677-i-want-declare-war.html) to anyone in the socionics community that the connection between esoteric topics and socionics is complete nonsense. However, the point is not about familiarity with the topic or the consensus of that community -- rather, it is about attributability of your claims to a legitimate source. Therefore, if RudieBoy has little familiarity with aspects of the topic that deal with the connection between socionics and mysticism, it can only be the fault of the lack of reference material provided to this end. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 04:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I admit that Rudieboy did ok with analyzing the contents of the sources for the Bukalov article, and apparently he did do some research into the subject. Unfortunately, his critique of the sources in regards to Chakras and Hindu thinking with socionics was not on the same par, and it seems to me that either he is either completely ignorant of Hindu Philosophy and Chakras in regards to socionics or that he is playing dumb, and that he simply does not want to admit to the facts at hand or make any confessions on the basis that doing so would substantiate and legitimize the esoteric article. I say this because it is utterly impossible to do any serious research into and not come to the same conclusions that socionics is heavily influenced by Hindu Philosophy, Chakras, Tattwas, and Occult philosophy. Naturally, only sourced material should really only be quoted in the esoteric article, and that is all that is in the esoteric article. There is much more to be said about socionics, the Occult, Hindu philosophy, and etc. that is not being said in the article on account of original research and lack of external sources. Now, I don't mind explaining the connections if someone was to contest a source, because I think that may be necessary to a certain degree. I don't expect people to just know everything about a topic they have no previous knowledge about. I think that lack of knowledge on the subject and lack of knowing the original culture in regards to socionics is really the major source of confusion in this matter. In reference to Niffweed, the fault is also in the individual for not doing proper research in the matter, especially when doing the proper research would lead to a confession that something originally objected to is indeed the case. Again, it looks clear to me that either nearly all of the protesters are either ignorant of some facts or some of you must be playing dumb in order to get the article to removed. I just can not imagine that something this obvious can be overlooked. I am not impressed that most of you objecting are as ignorant as you let on in regards to the connections. Especially with sources that show that certain things about eastern culture are the case.

Please show some qualitative data that Socionics is linked to the chakras, rather than merely asserting it. You still haven't shown that "Hindu philosophical thinking, chakras, and cosmological connection been widely discussed topics among socionics authors". The elements of Socioncis theory have been discussed in the Socionics article, and these elements are open to being tested. These alleged "esoteric ties" however have not been shown to have played any impact in the creation of Socionics theory, and the resources which you have mentioned in order to show that these "Esoteric" elements have ties to Socionics merely assert a link - they do not provide qualitative data showing that the "esoteric" elements have a strong similarity with aspects of Socionics theory. The chakras articles for example do not say that Socionics has ties with the chakras - they merely speculate that the chakras can be coupled with Socionic types.

Also, corectly reference the article "Correspondence of socionics functions to the elements of the western tradition" by Yakubovskiy, T.S. RudieBoy (talk) 20:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

As for the removal or modification of the statement "While typically secular socionics theory is metaphysically and philosophically a dualist one with many cosmological overtones" I still do not really understand the overall protest Rudieboy has with claiming that is an unneutral statement. I think it is fairly obvious socionics is a secular thing. I don't know anybody who has implemented socionics as such that it would be considered religious in any sense, especially not in a ceremonial sense. If Rudieboy were to show how socionics is religious in any sense, I would gladly consent to the modification of that statement. Otherwise, I think he is just blowing smoke and seeing if he can push an inch out of what has been written about this. --Rmcnew (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I do think Socionics is secular, I just think the sentence is redundant for the reasons mentioned. RudieBoy (talk) 20:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Theories are not religious because that would imply that there was a bias in the theory - theories are to be tested with impartiality, not with a loaded term like 'religious'. RudieBoy (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

As for the the16types.info article http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/general-discussion-model/25677-i-want-declare-war.html I would say that this is a testament to built up expectations over time only to find out that the actual culture behind socionics in the east did not transfer over with the typology. And I am safe to say that apparently I am one of the people who would rather know the truth than some fabrication or expectation that is not going to pan out with socionics over time. The culture in the east in regards to socionics is much different than in the west, where they do talk about Hindu philosophy, Chakras, and things of an esoteric type nature. In the west, this culture simply did not flow along with the internet, as socionics has been up to this point purely an internet phenomenon. And unfortunately I don't think that socionics would have caught on at all in the west had these followed from the beginning taking these things to be the case. --Rmcnew (talk) 19:55, 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)

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)

How come in the discussion on this very page you say that "Socionics is as cosmological as it comes", and yet say in the article that Socionics has "many cosmological overtones."? 82.38.154.201 (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Let us try this: keeping the esoteric links article and removeing the neutrality issue tag

There is all the verifiable sourced evidence for keeping the article, absolutely no verfiable sourced evidence against keeping the article, and about the only thing that anyone has done to argue against keeping the esoteric section is to attempt to discredit the sources, which the attempts have been fairly poor in my opinion. So, is anyone yet in favor of removing the neutrality tag? I don't see any reason to keep the neutrality tag up unless any of you want to keep dragging along a dead elephant to debate about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmcnew (talk • contribs) 21:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

"verifiable sourced evidence" is not needed to justify removing the "Esoteric links to Socionics" section - it is for you to justify the inclusion. If there has been no qualitative research to disprove a connection, how can you ask for any such research to be referenced? It is for you to satisfactorily prove a connection. RudieBoy (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Naturally, if there are still going to be people wanting to bullshit around and delete the topic for whatever biased reason the neutrality tag should stay. I just want to know ... is everyone all clear on this now or is further debate required? --Rmcnew (talk) 21:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Please try not to get unnecessarily emotional about this. I for one think the "Esoteric links to Socionics" section should be removed entirely, tag and all, as I do not believe that the "metaphysical" claims have any substance. RudieBoy (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Then the article neutrality dispute tag will have to stay on the basis of neutrality. My only assumption is that you flat out are refusing to see this one aspect of socionics for what it is and would like to hide that point of view from the west, for whatever agenda. Your claim for lacking substance is unsubstantiated in light of sources and what I believe to be feigned ignorance of those published sources whose acknowledgement in turn would mean making admission to verifiability of the content in the esoteric article. --Rmcnew (talk) 23:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Socionics - verifiable ties to the periodic table

I think a new section should be added to the Socionics article, called "Non-esoteric links to Socionics".

This article (http://socionics.org/theory/Default.aspx?load=lytov_mistakes.html) by Lytov, D states quite clearly the link between Socionics and the periodic table:

[translation] "We are all aware that socionic types - this description is approximate, if you collect all the real people to exclude from the descriptions at each of the 16 types of them can find a great variety. This fit to compare periodic table, and the table of elements, which were alchemists. Alchemists are recorded in its table of almost all substances, which they observed: sodium chloride, caustic soda, etc., but the periodic table is something more basic, it should have been dodumatsya that matter consists of atoms! It could be signs of sotsionicheskie must be broken down into atoms, from which they are composed? I think it is a very promising Socionics, which we must build." RudieBoy (talk) 01:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The alchemists used the Zodiac to derive the alchemical processes, which eventually did form into the periodic table in the early days of chemistry. A link between the periodic table and the socionics can be made through the Zodiac. If you were to put that anywhere in the socionics article, it would belong under esoteric links. Atoms in hindu thinking were often associated with the spirit element, which represent 4 subsections of the zodiac. It seems that lytov here is suggesting that socionics can be broken down in the same way that the periodic element chart was created. Meaning the same way that the alchemist broke the elements down from their processes derived from the Zodiac. This actually makes sense in the fact that the Zodiac from the "all of everything" or "the spirit element" and that in breaking them down, you can see each part and how they interact with other parts. I support the notion of a non-esoteric section, except that I think the debate would be as to what should be included in such a section. The way I see it there is very little differentiating socionics from esotericism already, even without chakras, yogis, auras, and amerindian toltec holymen. Socionics has some really crazy sounding crap associated with it. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You clearly do not know what you are talking about. The zodiac had nothing whatsoever to do with the formation of the periodic table. RudieBoy (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You just confessed to shooting out blanks in order to lure me into a certain position where you could attack my credibility. It only works when a person has no idea that you are doing that. I will take this as a positive sign that you are pretty desperate to find any excuse whatsoever you can to remove the esoteric links section article. Not that you have not been shooting out blanks all along. I figured that all you would do is shout "OIRIGIONAL RESEARCH" loudly despite verifiable sources while your body language is loudly screaming "I AM PRETENDING TO HAVE NO CLUE WHAT THESE SOURCES ARE ABOUT WHATSOSEVER IN HOPES THAT IF I BARK LOUDLY THAT THESE SOURCES ARE NOT CREDIBLE SOMEONE WITH SOME AUTHORITY TO DO SOME WILL GET RID OF THIS INFORMATION I DON'T WANT GETTING OUT IN THIS ARTICLE" ... but no, you had to get and try to get really cleaver on me and do some trick where you thought you could attack personal credibility. Well, good luck. I have not heard a substantial thing from you to support any of your counter-claims.

My point with this section is: just because someone makes an analogy or claims a link between two things does not ipso facto mean there is a link between those two things. The links have to be proven, not asserted.

I have shown that the zodiac resource is not correctly cited, and therefore is invalid as it stands. I have shown that the Bukalov-Castaneda is suspect on account of Castaneda's anthropological research being unsubstantiated with follow-up work. I have shown that one of the articles you have referenced on chakras says that chakras are useless from the position of the socionist, unless perhaps as a bit of fun. You have not established any of these 'esoteric' links whatsoever. RudieBoy (talk) 22:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I have shown that you have repeatedly refused to look at the articles exactly as they stand, avoid specific issues and twist the facts of the articles in order to claim that they are invalid. You also completely avoided mentioning the source from an extremely prominent socionics website that talks about Hindu Philosophy, Chakras, and Auras in such a way that they are entirely undiffrentiated from socionics. In fact, there are numerous sources posted that do the same exact thing and from reading the content you can clearly see that it is serious reading and not a bit of fun as you have attempted to claim. You also completely avoided the fact that the point of the Bukalov article was to show that the 16 types in socionics were EXACTLY the same as those of the 16 chacmools in Castaneda's theory, which means that arguments against Castaneda's theory you made were done pointlessly and needlessly. You also are so completely belligerent to this part of socionics culture, that you want to hide it. And I am not going to let you do that, and in the most unapologetic way ever. --Rmcnew (talk) 22:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This article (http://www.socionik.ru/tips/18.htm) that you referenced says: [translation]"But chakra, forming the exterior - is sotsionicheskie fun, if not useless. But their relationship with disease characteristics - the way to the new medicine. [...] It is based on the hypothesis [...]"

it is the article that YOU referenced that says chakras are useless if they are not fun. How fun chakras are does not prove that there is a link between socionics and chakras...

Carlos Castaneda is a fraud. And the article provided no empirical proof of a link between Socionics and the 16 magical warriors. "Emilitio" is seemingly identified as IEE on the basis of: "His smile radiated warmth ... it seemed he was too crowded pleasure. Could swear that he was ecstatic with joy to see me." His voice was very soft, and his eyes sparkle". Most types aren't even mention in the article. RudieBoy (talk) 01:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It is called Eisegesis and you arguments are full of it. Eisegesis is especially easy to do when you pick out choice texts and give them meaning. For example, quoteing the phrase "But chakra, forming the exterior - is sotsionicheskie fun, if not useless. But their relationship with disease characteristics - the way to the new medicine. [...] It is based on the hypothesis [...]" out of context of the rest of the article is eisegesis. The phrase "Carlos Castaneda is a fraud" and then using that as a reason to dispute the article with a few choice texts that sound like they prove what you are saying is another example of eisegesis. You also commited eisegesis when you claimed that it is more important to "say socionics was derived by Carl Jung and MBTI" than it is to say that Hindu Philosophy played a large part in the formation of socionics, which it did as Hindu philosophy also heavily influenced Jung [by his own confession] and therefore MBTI through Jung. Those are just your opinions and unsubstantiated claims. Until you begin arguing in context of the articles you should be ignored by everyone, as your argumentation is unsubstantiated.--Rmcnew (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not out of context - the article says that designating chakras based on appearance is useless, but can be fun, but hypothesizes that it may be possible to connect types with characteristic diseases - it does not provide any proof for this claim.

I now know that Augusta did not derive Socionics from MBTI, because she did not hear of it until 1985. I know she derived the functions from Jung because she said so - she never said that the functions were derived from "estoreic" sources. Considering that she didn't hear of the MBTI until 1985 I highly doubt she would of heard of the fraudulent anthropologist Carlos Castaneda either - but it is for you to provide proof, not anyone else. RudieBoy (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all, you are reading things into this that are not there anywhere. It is true that socionics authors, meaning within the totality of all established official authors who produce socionics reading material, discuss correspondences between socionics and the occult, discuss the correspondences between socionics and chakras, and discuss esoteric connections. This is the objective truth. It is also an objective truth that westerners tend to debate the associations socionics has with the occult, that these links are more discussed more numerously in eastern culture than in western culture. It is also an objective truth that eastern and western cultures have different points of view, and that socionics in the west has not included many aspects of eastern culture that are withing it. A subjective truth, which is unneutral, would be to state things such as that Carlos Canstanova is a fraud, that it is more appropriate to state that Jung and MBTI is the only thing that should be listed that socionics was derived from, and probably the biggest subjective unneutral jewel of them all is removing the esoterics links article on the basis that Carlos Canstanova is a fraud, some author states that the chakra correspondences that exists within socionics theory is a hypothesis, and because a bunch of western asshats who are disconnected from actual origional socionics culture and only learned about socionics purely over the internet are scared of the fact that legit socionics has these things associated with it and don't want it getting out that socionics has occult ties. That is the fact of the matter on that. --Rmcnew (talk) 20:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Going away for a while, but keeping a watchful eye on the esoteric links article

I am going to stop responding to anything written in the discussion section regarding the esoteric socionics article, because I can deeply sense the desperate manipulation in those attempting to make any claim whatsoever to remove the information from the public and my continued responding to them is encouraging to them that they might actually find a reason. I will continue checking the wikipedia to make sure that the information is still there and I will make reversions if I ever find anything has suddenly disappeared. Apparently I have become a mouthpiece for a representative view in socionics that some are ignorantly attempting to repress. I will be watching. --Rmcnew (talk) 22:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

A reminder

I did start a wikibook on socionics, just so you know. It might be better to pool your energies there, and link to the wikibook from here, than to go nuts over this one article.

I will request this though: that everything that goes into the Wikibook be sourced. I myself have not sourced my (fledgling) crash course on Augusta, the only started page in the book, so if someone could help me locate Augusta biographical sources, that would be helpful. Tcaudilllg (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Esoteric Links Article reverted again

Socionics has verifiable ties to hindu philosophy, tattwas, the western zodiac, cosmology, mysticism, and the occult. On account of the overall obscurity of socionics in general these ties tend to be known and discussed more in the east than in the west. The extent socionics has derived theory from these sources is an issue of debate among westerners. While socionics itself is typically secular, founder Ausura Augusta herself was verifiable involved with mysticism. Hindu philosophical thinking, chakras , and cosmological connections have been widely discussed topics among socionics authors --Rmcnew (talk) 23:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Esoteric Links article rereverted again after another individual with billigerent unneutral intentions against a legitimate socionics point of view has removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmcnew (talk • contribs) 23:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You have not explained how these hypothesized links have "verifiable ties". RudieBoy (talk) 01:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You have continually avoided the verifiable context of the articles in place of your own subjective reasoning. --Rmcnew (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Saying that I have "billigerent unneutral intentions against a legitimate socionics point of view" does not actually prove that I have "billigerent unneutral intentions against a legitimate socionics point of view" - provide evidence supporting your claim. RudieBoy (talk) 01:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You have continually shown that you allow your opinions to influence your reasoning for removing the article, and avoid the context of the actual articles in place of your own nonobjective subjective reasoning. Quite contrarily the objective evidence is that the discussion itself shows that the esoteric article has a place, that the content of the esoteric links article is a legitimate socionics point of view, and that your continued removing of the esoteric links article is done both on a subjective basis,which not only lacks objectivity it is unneutral. The article itself must stay in order to preserve neutrality, otherwise it is denying a legitimate point of view from being heard. Now, as I have stated before the wording of the article itself can be modified for neutrality basis, but not the article subsection itself. Naturally, I want everyone to agree that the modifications are objective. I have a feeling that this debate is going to go on for a long long time in that case. --Rmcnew (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I should also note that subjectively I share some of the same conclusions, but it would lack neutrality and objectivity to protest or defend the article purely on that basis. Objectivity is neutrality. Subjectivity is just bias, nothing substantiates it. --Rmcnew (talk) 20:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Trying yet again for agreement - Keeping Esoterics Links and removeing the neutrality issue tag

Socionics has verifiable ties to hindu philosophy, tattwas, the western zodiac, cosmology, mysticism, and the occult. On account of the overall obscurity of socionics in general these ties tend to be known and discussed more in the east than in the west. The extent socionics has derived theory from these sources is an issue of debate among westerners. While socionics itself is typically secular, founder Ausura Augusta herself was verifiable involved with mysticism. Hindu philosophical thinking, chakras , and cosmological connections have been widely discussed topics among socionics authors

In Ausura Augusta's first book, "the dual nature of man" Ausura Augusta links the socionic functions to the central nervous system, through the usage of the socionic functions. According to Dmitri Lytov, the connection to and from socionics functions to the cranial atmosphere has not been fully connected, though this was hypothesized by Augusta in her book. Socionists to this day continue to find a basic link from the central nervous system to socionic functions through various esoteric means such as chakras, and scientific research into the human brain. Non-socionic authors, such as John Davidson in his book "The Web of Life: Life Force" have done similar work in linking the tattwas to the central nervous system, and also with chakras. In consideration to Ausura Augusta's view Rick Dulong is quoted as saying "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." Chakras and tattwas are the basis behind original socionics theory.

First of all, I think once the subjective unneutral argumentation against the esoteric links article stops and things are looked at more objectivelly and neutrally, the neutrality tag should be removed. I also appreciate all the work Rudieboy is doing for the sake of keeping the Esoteric Links article. If Rudieboy keeps this up we should all be in agreement soon that socionics is Hindu Philosophy derived, associated with Chakras, Tattwas, and the like. Are you all going to just sit back and let Rudieboy ignorantly substantiate all of these connections with his own listing of links and research into the matter? I think he should continue full force with the substantiation.

I don't dispute this sentence "In Ausura Augusta's first book, "the dual nature of man" Ausura Augusta links the socionic functions to the central nervous system, through the usage of the socionic functions" - although in this instance, she is referring to traditional Chinese medicine, not Hindu philosophy and the Indian chakras as Rmcnew has been incessantly been arguing. But once again, I dispute the first paragraph, as no "verifiable ties" have been made between Socionics and "hindu philosophy, tattwas, the western zodiac, cosmology, mysticism, and the occult".

I again resent being accused of being unneutral without any evidence, simply for pointing out that something is not substantiated with evidence. I really wish Rmcnew could be level-headed and reasonable instead of attacking others. RudieBoy (talk) 03:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I accused you of being unneutral, because you were continually removing the article after making unsubstantiated subjective claims that were non-objective in light of the verifiable sources. I do appreciate that you took the time to research into the matter, as even though you are apparently ignorant of certain knowledge concerning these things [for example, making unsubstantiated claims with sources and arguing the opposite of the actual context] I know it would only further substantiate the basis behind keeping the esoteric links article. So, I would appreciate if you were to keep looking into the matter. Though it seems your most recently strategy is to attempt to confuse the issue at hand with conflicting fluff, although you have been doing that all along to some degree. --Rmcnew (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

As for "verifiable ties" it is quite clear in the research done by well known official socionists that there are ties from socionics to "hindu philosophy, tattwas, the western zodiac, cosmology, mysticism, and the occult". You can probably also add in the research done into Native American Philosophy as well. While the sentence itself is true, I might consider suggestions for a modification to the sentence. In that case, just merely suggest some other wording and see if I agree with it. --Rmcnew (talk) 20:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Attention: Rmcnew

Do not edit my comments. Quote them in future. RudieBoy (talk) 04:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You made an unsubstantiated claim that chakras and tattwas are not connected with research into the central nervous system. Chakras and tattwas are connected into research into the central nervous system. I did bold some comments you made that were legitimate and italicized the unsubstantiated claim. I also know that you are trying to throw blanks by saying that it was Chinese Medicine, in place of Chakras, in order to confuse the issue in hopes that you can yet find an excuse to throw the whole thing out. Too bad. I don't think it matters now what the claim is, Chinese Medicine and Indian Medicine have similar backgrounds and a knowledge of chakras has been used both by Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Indian Medicine practitioners. A can of worms has been opened and the truth is out that it is chakras and the tattwas that influenced socionics. I don't really respect that you are now attempting to confuse the issue at hand. --Rmcnew (talk) 20:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with you editing his posts.70.162.119.140 (talk) 06:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Note that rmcnew has also cited the article from http://socionist.blogspot.com/2009/03/development-of-english-language.html in quoting material that does not exist in reference to the connection between socionics and tattwas, erroneously claiming that DeLong ever suggested the connection. he also has made a couple of edits doing things like reverting corrections to his own spelling errors and re-adding NPOV tags in the wrong places that were appropriately removed. his consistent lack of attention to re-creating these errors without attending to the discussions here lead me to believe that some of his edits are in bad faith. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Niffweed, you have continually removed NPOV tags where some edits were being debated. Stop doing that, thanks. Also, Rick Delong has told me both in private and has stated openly several times that Ausura Augusta discussed the socionics link between Chakras and Socionics, as that source article proves. You are also erroneously wrong in saying that a link between socionics, chakras, and the tattwas has never been made. I am also rereverting the substantiated quote from Rick Delong you inappropriately removed. --Rmcnew (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I question whether Delong has that information. All he has are a few books; he does not have access to Augusta's personal notes, which I'm sure are a part of her family's estate. Tcaudilllg (talk) 10:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Socionics and Mysticism article

Why not let's make a separate article for socionics mysticism? I mean, it does exist: there are like 20 or more published articles about it. Tcaudilllg (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

In the event that someone were to this, it would be a fight to the death to keep the article posted here. You would have to argue continually with a bunch of western nonconformists who don't want to admit that socionics is completely esoteric at its base, use socionics in a way inconsistent with its founders and would just rather not know the truth of the matter. Although, I would actually be for such a thing taking that an article were to be written. Take note people are going to have to watch it to make sure someone just doesn't remove it for whatever bullshit reason they first think up the quickest. --Rmcnew (talk) 01:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I just had a look at the section. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socionics_(metaphysics)&action=edit&redlink=1 . I may add some content to it when I have time.

I added content, though it needs some more sourced cited materials. --Rmcnew (talk) 00:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Esoteric links section material move from the main socionics page to socionics_(esotericism)

The Esoterics links article has been moved from the main socionics article to the esoteric socionics article in light of the discussion between Tcaulldig and I, and in consideration to rational skeptics and behaviorists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmcnew (talk • contribs) 19:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socionics_(metaphysics) --Rmcnew (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Taking the Fight to MBTI

I've noticed that the MBTI article has been slated for inclusion on the Wikipedia CD. I think we should get an answer as to why Socionics isn't also included. Tcaudilllg (talk) 10:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably because socionics is a legitimate "mystic psychology" and the wikipedia staff would prefer to put a watered down and generalized "to the point of uselessness" typology on their cd, than to bother to put anything on there that even remotely resembles the "real thing." --Rmcnew (talk) 20:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

In other words the staff probably won't include it until the controversy is over with socionics and the "pretenders" who want to make it seem like something close to MBTI, when it is actually an esoteric "mystic psychology". They probably just don't know how to label it, and they would be right not to include it until it can be properly labeled. --Rmcnew (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You are incorrect. MBTI and Socionics measure the same thing, just differently. Socionics is not a mystic psychology because it is not the opinion of a majority of socionists that it is such. Tcaudilllg (talk) 06:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

A poor salesman who wanted to hide the truth about the contents of certain unpalatable 'ingredients' can cover crap with icecream and sell it to the majority of the parent of little children. It doesn't make it ice cream and it certainly doesn't make it right [or the truth for that matter]. You want to say that socionics is not a mystic psychology, because it simply has not been stated by a majority that it is a mystic psychology? Not only is that claim unsubstantiated and your own specific opinion on the matter, I think taking the evidence the rational skeptics would extremely disagree with your reason to declare that socionics is not a mystic psychology, and that it would be incorrect not to label it as such. --Rmcnew (talk) 19:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

MBTI's inclusion on wikipedia projects has nothing to do with the "truth" of the subject matter but rather how well written the article is. MBTI's article is far more well written. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 01:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The rational skeptics are currently investigating socionics

The rational skeptics are currently investigating socionics to discover the the real truth behind socionics that people are attempting to hide in order to make unsubstantiated scientific and others claims about socionics that is simply not true in light of the legitimate esoteric background of socionics, the mystic interpretations that are present in socionics theory and associated with the founders such as Ausura Augusta, and the substantiated connection between socionics, information metabolism (otherwise known as psychic energy), mysticism, tattwas, chakras, physiognomy and any other connected protoscience or pseudoscience. For this reason, the 'rational skeptic' tag has been added to this article.

Wrong. It is not just a mystic psychology. It is also a concrete and realist psychology. If you want to focus on the mysticism half of socionics, you need to focus on the duality relation itself. Although Augusta dabbled in mysticism, she was not in herself a mystic. Tcaudilllg (talk) 13:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

"Mystic psychology" is often indistinguishable from "realist philosophy", as the two go hand and hand. Ontology and mathematics are often used in both separately or together. It is ridiculous to say that socionics is a "realist philosophy" and not also also say that it is a "mystic psychology". Socionics is a realist philosophy and also a mystic psychology. Claiming that "ausura augusta herself was not a mystic" is about as silly as going back up to a couple of debates ago where people were claiming that "you can claim Jung was influenced by hermeticism, alchemy, hindu philosophy, but socionics sure the heck was not" when in fact the basis of socionics is nothing except chakras, tattwas, psychic energy and that it was actually Antoni Kepimski's theory developed from these and hardly Jung or MBTI at all. I am getting so sick of people making these silly unsubstantiated claims and making false claims about its origin in order to frame socionics away from the actual truth about its esoteric foundation. You are just telling mistruths about its origion in order to 'make it seem acceptable' to people who want nothing to do with chakras, psychic energy, or esotericism. In fact, I would call the history of its origin as originally told in english to be a big fat western lie, and it is sad that people believe something to be true about socionics that is false and making it seem like it is something that it is not. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you want to make socionics what you want it to be, whether or not we agree with you. You're trying to take away our ability to see socionics as it is useful to us. If you want to see socionics in X way then go do it, but leave us out of it. That's they key thing: your perspective on this is UTTERLY NOT USEFUL to the rest of us, if for anything at all! The only people it is useful for, other than you, are the opponents of socionics. I'll bet the MBTI people are licking their chops over your "crusade". Tcaudilllg (talk) 17:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You'd might as well call relativity "mystic physics". Mysticism was only Augusta's inspiration; socionics itself is not mysticism. If anything, Augusta wanted to replace mysticism with socionics. Tcaudilllg (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I just want people to be able to see all sides of the story. Some of you don't like that. That isn't a reason to oppose the acknowledgment of a legitimate viewpoint different from your own. And the only thing the "MBTI people are going to be licking their chops about" is that there is an insane amount of people who believed a lie about a theory that has an insane amount of esoteric and mystic qualities straight out of the box. If the truth was told about socionics from the beginning, than the critics would have no use for socionics in the first place would have nothing more to say about it and would leave the theory alone. If some critical assholes who have no use for a theory and those that do have a personal use for the theory KNOW AND BELIEVE THE SAME TRUTHFUL THING about a theory, than the fact that there are some critical assholes out there like "rational skeptics" and "MBTI people licking their chops" has absolutely no effect whatsoever, because they know the same truth. Now, considering that the whole history of socionics as it was initially presented over the internet and in english to the west is a COMPLETE AND UTTER LIE, well then, I am pretty sure the "rational skeptics" and the "MBTI people licking their chops" are going to be pretty busy gossiping about the fraudulent nature of the presentation of socionics in making it appear to be anything like Jung or MBTI. Just stop giving them power over you by spreading lies about the origion of socionics. The truth is the antidote, and that is what I am gifting people with. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

But is it even the truth? Where are your critics? Even among metaphysicians, I think your argument may be controversial. That's why I think you need to approach practicing metaphysicians about it first. Get to know people and learn their views, their perspectives. Be a professional. When you've got a following, or at least have met people who agree with you (and have similar credentials, then you can make your case much easier, and less people are likely to disagree.

I've got a friend who may be interested in hearing what you have to say. I'll see if I can get in touch with them. Tcaudilllg (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This passage:

"Socionics is currently scientifically held to be a protoscience by cognitive psychologists, and has a foundational basis in esoteric cosmology. Because information aspects are held to exist whether or not they are observed, socionics is strictly an ontological based dualist theory and realist philosophy, though it is open to other uses beyond the applications of the social sciences."

is gibberish. It's a bunch of jargon which newcomers will not understand and will be turned off by. Tcaudilllg (talk) 20:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Tcaud, those are actually legitimate philosophical, metaphysical, etc. classifications for socionics. I agree that not everyone is familiar with the terminology. I disagree that that is a reason to remove the terminology. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge it is...

I think we should head off any administrative decision to scrap all but the main Socionics article by merging the in advance of the "consensus". Wikipedia is notoriously political and vulnerable to criticism by Right-leaning cultural conservatives/ethnocentrists... we need to tell the admins in no uncertain terms "HANDS OFF", because we don't really have a choice right now but to use Wikipedia. Google #1 means something, unfortunately, and without Wikipedia it will be diffocult to make people aware of socionics.

One thing I have learned from all of this, is that public resistance to socionics will be stiff FROM SOME QUARTERS. Although I suspect that it won't be an issue politically (the United States is nearing a profound political transformation, in fact), ...there probably will be people yelling at the top of their lungs over the cultural transformation socionics will bring. As for user Mango, I think he's a radical pure and simple, and is just playing the bad guy to see if socionics really does have social potential.

Bottom line: we need to merge "socionics" and "socionics (esoterism)", and for that matter, eliminate the redirect. Tcaudilllg (talk) 12:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually nevermind, we can't act until the debate is over, because we can't blank pages. I hate Wikipedian beuracracy. ...I want to call attention to the fact that Wikipedia has an open-content encyclopedia MONOPOLY (Google Knol doesn't count), so it had better be on its best behavior. Tcaudilllg (talk) 13:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I am currently merging parts of socionics_(esoterism) right now. I have a feeling the same people who were opposed to the listing of information contrary to the psychological approach and expository to the mystical approach (in a critical fashion) are still going to be protesting to the inclusion of the mystical approach. I have a feeling it is going to be a fight to keep the information up. --Rmcnew (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Socionics and scientific validation

The statement "Socionics currently has no scientific validation to date." is not true. There have been at least two studies which have shown that relationships between "dual-types" are statistical more common than would be expected by chance: [2]. The Esoteric Foundation section as a whole is full of untruths, unqualified statements, and generally has a non-neutral POV throughout. It is astonishing to believe that you could get a degree while being as partial as you have been here, and it's hard to see what your "credentials" actually are. RudieBoy (talk) 09:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Rudieboy: Please see my most latest entry on the talk page concerning "accidently taking a pseudoscientific stance" and you should hopefully more readily understand why that was emphasized. --Rmcnew (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

1. it was a degree in religion (theology, specifically)
2. degrees are proof of knowledge, not wisdom.

The main issue behind the esoterism movement is that it presumes a conspiracy for which there is NO EVIDENCE. He's says he's starting a "news letter", but I think the whole purpose of that is to lift himself above the need for peer review.

Tcaudilllg (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

RudieBoy: I've blanked him out once already. It's your turn now. Tcaudilllg (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Socionics in its initial form is a esoteric and protoscientific mystic psychology and group theory, and to claim otherwise that socionics is scientific beyond this is taking a pseudoscientific stance. It has been validated already with sources that there are two divergent views in socionics theory, a mystical and esoteric version of socionics that still uses the chakras and esoteric views of psychic energy, and that there is a pseudoscientific version of socionics that seperates itself from esoteric viewpoints and relies on the empiriclely derived understandings of individuals according to their experiences with the theory, which is also similar to the mystical stance in that the individuals usually understand the theory according to analogy, that being in the form of "subjective realism" or if you wanted to use a more esoteric sounding term "sympathetic magic". It can also be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that socionics is derived from the western zodiac, but I doubt that most of you would ever admit that even as the information informing you of this is sitting right in front of you. [content beyond this point removed on account of administrative comment below] --Rmcnew (talk) 18:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You know, nobody has to bet money on anything, but what goes into the article does have to be backed up by sources, for purposes of verification. I would suggest that energy spent to convince other editors that you're right would be better spent helping get sources together.

Also, Rmcnew, if you find yourself using words such as "fool", "in denial", "completely prejudiced", then... you won't be able to edit here for long. I'm an administrator, and I'm much more patient than average. Lots of admins would read the above paragraph (now struck) and be ready to block. Remember: Your arguments are stronger if you refrain from including any personally directed language. Please make strong arguments. The subject deserves to be treated well, and not short-changed because we're on the talk page caught up in personal squabbles. Let's rise above that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I am a pretty patient too, thanks for understanding. I simply see editor conflict as a means to improve the quality of an article. Thanks for commenting. --Rmcnew (talk) 18:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I should also note that in the past (as Rudieboy and Tcaudillig have pointed out as an obvious attempt to discredit my input in favor of theirs) it is true that I have implied the possibility that Ausura Augusta and the other founders were secretly involved with esoteric occult associations, but I have abondoned that suggestion in the light of the fact that stateing that as the case may not be the most neutral way of presenting the esoteric development of socionics and have deceided that is better and more neutral to take the accepted stance from both Dmitri Lytov and Rick Delong that socionics is a protoscience derived from old world mystical and cosmological practices, and that claiming that socionics has been scientifically validated or can be necessarily validated according to modern scientific techniques is a pseudoscientific stance. I do agree that there are two divergent viewpoints in socionics that have different usages and interpretations, though I would never say that this proves that there is a conspiracy, just divergent points of view that should be recognized. --Rmcnew (talk) 19:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I still hold that socionics has been derived from hermeticism, as nearly all protoscientific philosophies that may now still be used pseudoscientifically have their roots in either hermeticism or similar cosmological philosophy. --Rmcnew (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Fun with sources

Hey, check it out: Talk:Socionics/Sources! I made a page with the sources from the article, and space to talk about them. I've never made one of these before, and there might be a much better way to do it. If so, please refactor as necessary. I'm curious to see what people think of the sources currently used in the article, and where the problems are.

Of course, if this doesn't seem like a good way to talk about sources, suggestions are always welcome. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Well then, this is a welcome development! Alright then, discussion it is. Tcaudilllg (talk) 02:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there a way to make listing of sources automatic in the same consistent format all over by simply inserting a copy-pasted version of a paragraph into the page? I tried just copy pasteing earlier for an updated version and it erased the format, so I rereverted. Listing all the sources there could be time consumeing. --Rmcnew (talk) 20:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

after the cited material. Tcaudilllg (talk) 21:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

i've added my take on a bunch of the sources. this is a great idea. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this is so much better than fighting about what goes on the main page and making constant reversions to that effect. --Rmcnew (talk) 22:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad the discussion page is helpful. I agree that the reverts really have to stop. A slow edit war is still an edit war. Can you guys wait until we reach some agreement before making edits to the article that you know are contested? I'm getting ready to have the page protected if I see.... one more revert. That's where we stand. You get it? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The fruitless discussion over the "alchemical heritage" of socionics.

I'm ready to resume work on the article, myself. In my estimation Wikipedia is hostage to conspiracy theorists, so we'll just leave Rmcnew to his little playground at the bottom of the page. Put the neutrality tag there and be done with it.

Reuben, you obviously can't differentiate between the critique of ideas you put forward and personal attacks. So, I'm not going to discuss it with you any more. It's plainly without point. Tcaudilllg (talk) 03:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to try a new tack. Your position is not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Tcaudilllg (talk) 03:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Since this statement is personally directed towards me, all I am going to say to you is that your insistance to misrepresent whatever you think my position is in unappreciated, esepecially since what you think my position is isn't even my position at all. You keep claiming that there is someone argueing for a "conspiracy", when no one has ever argued that there is one short of you asserting over and over again that someone is argueing for a conspiracy. It should also bring into question that your attitude is obviously effecting your ability to work fruitfully with other editors in createing a quality wikipedia article. I do, however, welcome you to begin editing other parts of the article that are of interest to you. Now for the following message (for those who would like to edit the esoteric portion of the article): --Rmcnew (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Call to other editors for proper cooperation to state the esoteric and mystical components of socionics neutrally

The viewpoint that socionics has esoteric qualities, practices, etc. is extremely notable, especially as there is a large percentage of the socionics population, a main socionics founder with a publishing house even who are involved with esoteric practices. Cooperation with other editors in this regard should be to represent all of the separate elements neutrally. When you finally decide to cooperate properly with the article, the frame should be "how am I going to neutrally represent all of these seperate viewpoints?". Exclusion of the viewpoints because of personal biases towards the information are non-neutral and are only going to cause problems with the other editors. Your cooperation would be appreciated. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

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) 18:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Not only is the link between Socionic information elements and the central nervous system a hypothesized link, the central nervous system is a part of the body for which there is substantial scientific evidence for. It is absurd for you to claim that Socionics is "esoteric" and "mystical" everytime the central nervous system is mentioned in the same sentence as Socionics. RudieBoy (talk) 16:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

First off, this whole statement you made above shows that you have failed to pay close attention to what the link sources are saying. 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. --Rmcnew (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

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) 20:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Even if socionics is a soft science like sociology and psychology, and even if it's a protoscience...erm, how does that mean that socionics has "esoteric" and "mystical" links? If that's your justification, it's hardly convincing. RudieBoy (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

My answer to you is the following:

Roscrucianism's (a hermetic philosophy) relationship to science - Many concepts, presented in this work written in 1909, are in agreement with recent paradigm changes purposed in different areas of science; these paradigms are currently considered 'fringe' and controversial among the mainstream scientific community, although the proponents regard them as protoscience.

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.

protoscientific esoteric hermetic philosophies as they compare to socionics

Rosicrucianism - Main themes - The Rosicrucian Cosmo-Conception is divided in three parts: Part I: the Visible and the Invisible Worlds, Man and the Method of Evolution, Rebirth and the Law of Cause and Effect; Part II: the scheme of Evolution in general and the Evolution of the Solar System and the Earth in particular; Part III: Christ and His Mission, Future Development of Man and Initiation, Esoteric Training and a Safe Method of Acquiring Firsthand Knowledge.

Relation to science - Many concepts, presented in this work written in 1909, are in agreement with recent paradigm changes purposed in different areas of science; these paradigms are currently considered 'fringe' and controversial among the mainstream scientific community, although the proponents regard them as protoscience. Protoscience refers to historical philosophical disciplines which existed prior to the development of scientific method, which allowed them to develop into science proper .... - http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/The_Rosicrucian_Cosmo-Conception

Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn - Naturally, in the physical world all four states are invading the space of the other, and from this we get a mix or interchanged Tattwa. Thus, we end up with a total of 25 tatwa symbols. For example, Tegas in Vayu would be an example. (As a side note, if you have ever been in the vault of the Adepts, does this interchange of elements, equaling 25 remind you of anything?) ... 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) - http://golden-dawn.blogspot.com/2009/02/golden-dawn-tattwas-their-little-known.html

Review of "The Web of Life: Life Force - The Energetic Constitution of Man and the Neuro-Endocrine Connection" - The concept of the body as a tattvic hologram is figuratively brilliant and intuitively acceptable. It is indeed an amazing insight to propound subatomic phenomena at the cellular level, where the laws governing energy relationships change dramatically. What is novel and exciting is the author's correlation of the five basic tattwas to the various endocrines and their further elaboration with the nervous system. - Bhaskar Vyas (Surgeon), Bulletin of the Theosophy Science Study Group, India - http://www.johndavidson.org/WebofLifeReviews.html

Hermeticism and esoteric cosmology as protoscience - The English scholar Dame Frances Yates famously proposed that the Hermetic revival also encouraged the success of the scientific revolution, arguing that Egyptian sun worship promoted Copernican heliocentrism, and that theurgy encouraged emphasis on "man as operator" upon nature. While scholars now agree that Yates overstated somewhat, the "Yates Thesis" has merit; a notable example is the immediate acceptance of William Harvey's 1628 presentation of the circulation of the blood by the English physician and mystic Robert Fludd (1574–1637), who believed that this demonstrated the microcosm because the heart was like the sun, with blood circulating like the planets. http://www.answers.com/topic/hermeticism

Kundalini energy in Tantra Yoga - The Buddhist texts of Indian Tantra describe 7 energy centres (chakras) in connection with the five Tattvas. This finds its ultimate refinement in the Tibetan Buddhist fivefold chakra system, which is part of their fivefold division of esoteric symbolism for categorising the Universe. The Tattvas correspond to the five lower chakras in the Indian scheme of energy centres, and to all five psychic centres of the Tibetan chakra scheme. - http://www.magicalpath.net/articles/tattva.htm

Conclusion: socionics is hermeticism

Socionics is hermeticism. The proof is in the pudding. Might as well admit it. --Rmcnew (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The Sources I Find Unreliable

in this article are (including other links from the same websites):

1. http://www.socionics.us/index.shtml
2. http://www.socionics.com/advan/vi/vi.htm
3. http://socionist.blogspot.com/2009/03/development-of-english-language.html
4. http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/articles/24685-information-metabolism-dmitri-lytov.html
5. http://www.psihologia.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1503&sid=f39af7defe85e5b10864a55b2aac7381
6. http://www.magicalpath.net/articles/tattva.htm
7. http://golden-dawn.blogspot.com/2009/02/golden-dawn-tattwas-their-little-known.html
8. http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Aushra_Augusta
9. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Definitive-Socionics-Info/113529516599?v=info

A quarter of them don't even name the author, a quarter have insufficiently educated authors and half of them are forums, blogs, facebook or wikisocion. Most of them are not direct sources. Really, http://www.socionics.ibc.com.ua/ is the most reliable English source (a decent amount of educated people), and http://www.socioniko.net/en/index.html to a lesser extent (a barely passable amount of educated people, so you'd have to see who said what before using anything). That's why books and translation (like rmcnew has done with the Google translator) are probably the best options, although you still have to notice the credibility of the authors. I didn't go through the Russian or translated articles. MichaelExe (talk) 01:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Credible sources

I am adding source links of what I think is credible here (sourcewise):

http://www.socionics.ibc.com.ua/ <--- Kiev Socionics Institute - Alexander Bukalov - mostly russian and some english

http://www.socioniko.net/en/index.html <--- probably biggest credible english archive

http://www.socionics.ru/index_eng.htm <--- Socionics Institute in Moscow - Chief Director of institute: Ph.D. in Socionics Tatyana Prokofieva - russian and english

http://www.socionik.ru <--- russian only

http://socionics.org/ <--- russian only

http://www.socionic.ru/ <--- russian only

http://socionics.kiev.ua/ <--- russian only

http://www.socionika.info/ <--- russian only

http://www.socionik.com.ua/ <--- russian only

Sources from credible authors

Dmitri Lytov has an article in russian on the socionics.org website

http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_url?doit=done&tt=url&intl=1&fr=bf-home&trurl=http%3A%2F%2Fsocionics.org%2Ftheory%2FDefault.aspx%3Fload%3Dlytov_mistakes.html&lp=ru_en&btnTrUrl=Translate

The following could be credible or questionably credible:

http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BE%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0

2006 Socionics conference in Kiev Ukraine.

I agree that socionics.us may not be as credible (sourcewise), but I include the following link, as it documents a lecture event at the Kiev Socionics Institute. It can be used to help discover credible sources from legitimate socionists. Pictures of professional socionists are included on the page (as well as some descriptions of them, and also talks).

http://www.socionics.us/interviews/conference_2006.shtml

About the revert

I am in favor of several things that have been added to the article.

First of all, the Russian explanations are good. I maintain that the information metabolism section is needed as I wrote it with the intent of explaining precisely, without the use of unqualified assumptions, what information metabolism is. It is known that Augusta saw a person's type as unrelated to the work they preferred, although I will have to hunt the link to the letter where she expresses this view. (it's somewhere on Socioniko).

I believe Rmcnew should not be allowed to edit the article and hence I will revert any edits he makes from here on. However things like the "series on" template may be acceptable to me if they are inserted by other users. No information on esoterism is allowed because it is not notable. If it were notable at all, it would as an example of how a promising infant science can be hijacked by people looking to advance esoteric beliefs.

Rmcnew believes he can muddy the waters by making constructive edits while inserting his beliefs in them -- "in exchange for my effort, you must accept the presence of esoteric content." Or alternatively, "if I make constructive edits, then that will give me cover against my critics." There is nothing he can offer that we can't do ourselves. In my view Rmcnew is a troll who should not be fed. I recommend ignoring him completely. Tcaudilllg (talk) 14:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Tcaulldig, you have continually failed to post sources, while making ad hominem personal remarks. You keep talking about blocking me from wikipedia, and when I challenge you to post sources, you don't post them. You keep calling legitimate things concerning socionics theory 'non-notable', when those things are essential parts of socionics theory. And you also keep making unconstructive rereverts, that arn't really justified short of calling names and using dysphemisms. This is completely childish on your part. --Rmcnew (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

And you should stop saying that I should be blocked from the article, because it is probably just going to backfire on you and get us both locked out. Considering that you keep making these unconstructive reverts that are for ad hominem reasons. Personal attacks are not reasons to make reverts. Stop immediatelly. --Rmcnew (talk) 16:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The scientific norms of the East

This is the first I've heard of the East's scientific norms being different from the West's. I think we should request of McNew a reliable source in that respect. Tcaudilllg (talk) 11:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

source 1

Source: http://www.psych.utah.edu/gordon/Classes/Psy4905Docs/PsychHistory/Cards/Logic.html

Logical arguments are usually classified as either 'deductive' or 'inductive'.

Deduction: In the process of deduction, you begin with some statements, called 'premises', that are assumed to be true, you then determine what else would have to be true if the premises are true. For example, you can begin by assuming that God exists, and is good, and then determine what would logically follow from such an assumption. You can begin by assuming that if you think, then you must exist, and work from there. In mathematics you can begin with some axioms and then determine what you can prove to be true given those axioms. With deduction you can provide absolute proof of your conclusions, given that your premises are correct. The premises themselves, however, remain unproven and unprovable, they must be accepted on face value, or by faith, or for the purpose of exploration.

Induction: In the process of induction, you begin with some data, and then determine what general conclusion(s) can logically be derived from those data. In other words, you determine what theory or theories could explain the data. For example, you note that the probability of becoming schizophrenic is greatly increased if at least one parent is schizophrenic, and from that you conclude that schizophrenia may be inherited. That is certainly a reasonable hypothesis given the data. Note, however, that induction does not prove that the theory is correct. There are often alternative theories that are also supported by the data. For example, the behavior of the schizophrenic parent may cause the child to be schizophrenic, not the genes. What is important in induction is that the theory does indeed offer a logical explanation of the data. To conclude that the parents have no effect on the schizophrenia of the children is not supportable given the data, and would not be a logical conclusion.

Deduction and induction by themselves are inadequate for a scientific approach. While deduction gives absolute proof, it never makes contact with the real world, there is no place for observation or experimentation, no way to test the validity of the premises. And, while induction is driven by observation, it never approaches actual proof of a theory. The development of the scientific method involved a gradual synthesis of these two logical approaches.

For a more comprehensive discussion of deduction, and induction, read the relevant sections of the book by Copi, referenced on this page."

source 2

Source: http://www.medicalacupuncture.org/aama_marf/journal/vol17_1/article2.html

In contrast, within the Western scientific tradition, theory plays a much more central role. The scientific method relies on theory to direct the gathering of data through experimental investigations, which then are used to further refine the theory. This is principally a deductive approach. As Thomas Kuhn points out, the theoretical paradigm is so important that data that do not conform to the theory are simply disregarded as anomalous.

The Chinese mind, conversely, is much more inductively oriented, holding the data to be of central importance. The data points in Chinese medicine are each unique patient encounter, the symptoms, course of action, and the final outcome. Each unique patient encounter is truth, and therefore takes precedence over any theoretical concern.

You expect us to believe a source from an acupuncture website? Tcaudilllg (talk) 22:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The article was written by a medical doctor familiar with acupuncture and eastern medicine. And the link comes from a .org, which is typically more reliable than a .com --Rmcnew (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I see what's going on. So be it. Tcaudilllg (talk) 00:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

source 3

We note that in this chain of reasoning we assume an invariable correlation between what is inferred and the sign. Thus, in our example, we take it as a fact that a siren is always associated with an ambulance or a police car. On what basis do we take this to be case? On the basis of numerous past experiences. In other words, the reasoning based on inference is not an Aristotelian syllogism which is purely deductive, but an application of inductive reasoning. Inductive logic is at the root of empirical science.

Source: http://www.metanexus.net/Magazine/tabid/68/id/9287/Default.aspx

source 4

Is Science Entirely Inductive?

On the previous page, you learned that although mathematics is deductive in nature - that is, logical proof is the only acceptable evidence of truth - the process of mathematics is not entirely deductive. It is also true that although science is inductive by nature - observations are the only acceptable evidence of truth - the process of science can be deductive!

In particular, physicists make extensive use of mathematics as a powerful theoretical tool. Theoretical physicists often construct theories as "mathematical models" deductively, starting with assumptions about the inner workings of stars or atoms, for instance, and then working out the mathematical consequences of their assumptions. An essential difference between a mathematician and a theoretical physicist is that the physicist uses mathematics as a reasoning tool. The success of the mathematical model depends on how well its results agree with observations of nature - if they do not agree the physicist knows that this means that her assumptions - not the observations - need to be adjusted.

Source: http://www.batesville.k12.in.us/Physics/PhyNet/AboutScience/Inductive.html

See also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetico-deductivism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

http://faculty.unlv.edu/beisecker/Courses/Phi-101/Induction.htm

Final Comments

It seems like it's 3-to-1 in favor of Rmcnew. It's clear to me that the socionics Wikipedia project now lacks all credibility. It is rife with NPOV issues and gives undue weight to a number of subjects. It's clear to me, again, that I'm outnumbered and it's just not worth the effort. Wikipedia's great weakness exhibits itself yet again: unmitigated discussion of even the most ridiculous ideas. It's clear that Wikipedia is impossible to change from within: it only responds to pressure from without. Thus discussion is pointless, because the outcome will only reflect external conditions. Tcaudilllg (talk) 13:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The reason there are NPOV issues is because there are editors who are insisting that there are sides, and are taking sides, and are thus promoteing their own unneutral points of view over finding credible articles to justify socionics having a wikipedia page. Just stop everything else you are doing and find credible sources for wikipedias standards. That is all the editors have to do. --Rmcnew (talk) 15:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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)

Proof positive that Alexander Bukalov is indeed studying, personally, synergetics theory

This is an abstract of an article that Alexander Bukalov himself wrote. Go to this link, find the paragraph below and see the key word: synergetics

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

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.

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)

17th century hermeticism, with a revival in the 1950s onward

The conception of society as a system that could be modelled and controlled through information processing and feedback loops fascinated not only the cybernetics researchers but also architects, planners and designers of the time. The simple and hermetic systems of first-order cybernetics, working mainly with engineering and mathematical models, gave way to second-order cybernetics which dealt with 'open systems', or the interdependence of systems, be they social, natural or technical, including factors such as complexity and risk. Cybernetics also expanded into the late 1960s cultural moment of discontent, paranoia and movements for change, offering an epistemology that spread from the control-oriented planning of the government and the military into sectors as various as business, art and counter-cultural politics and technology.

Source: http://www.janvaneyck.nl/0_2_3_events_info/arc_08_systems_exposed.html

Hermetic books, ancient metaphysical works dealing essentially with the idea of the complete community of all beings and objects. Authorship of the books was attributed to the Egyptian god of wisdom, Thoth, whose name was sometimes translated into Greek as Hermes Trismegistus [Thoth the thrice great] and was therefore equated with the Greek god Hermes. The books treat of a variety of subjects, including magic, astrology, and alchemy, and were particularly influential in the 3d cent. with the Neoplatonists and in France and England in the 17th century.

Source: http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0823498.html

Hermeticism is a historiographical phrase describing the work that attempts to reconstruct the mode of thought held by 17th century scientists. It primarily traces out the connections of Renaissance (16th century) modes of thought with those of the Scientific Revolution (17th century). This type of analysis began with English historians of science in the 1960s. This category of history of science work has largely subsumed earlier academic philosophers' work on the problem of transition from Aristotelianism to 17th century science.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermetic_science

Analysis and Conclusion

Analysis:

During the 1960s, there was a revival of 17th century hermetic science.

Hermeticism is a logical system, which has been used to understand groups.

The revival of hermetic science sprouted several theories, such as synergetics and cybernetics.

cybernetics, as a philosophy, was intended to solve some of the social problems in the 1960s

Ausura Augusta and other socionists intended socionics to explain human relationships, as an empirical social science.

Hermetic science uses the tattwas, which resembles the socionics information elements.

Hermetic associations have associated the tattwas, to the central nervous system via chakras

Ausura Augusta and other socionists have made associations between the information elements, and the central nervous system via chakras.

Alexander Bukalov has written numerous articles with hermetic, cosmological, and other esoteric content, and apparently has studied synergetics, which sprouted from hermetic science.

Conclusion:

All evidence dictates that socionics is hermeticism

Only the evidence you used dictates that socionics is hermeticism. This is original research. If a notable person explicitly admits that socionics is hermeticism, then you mention in the article that said person said this, but it's still speculation, so it would likely be limited to a subsection about theories or to criticism. If the official socionics associations admit that socionics is hermeticism, then you can actually add it to the summary. You might be right, but even if you were, your own research has no place in this article. When I can google your name and see "PhD" beside it, your claims might make the criticisms section.

This is the kind of research that would be appropriate for a university thesis, but it violates Wikipedia:No_original_research. "To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." Directly support, in this case, would be the publication of your claim on either http://www.socioniko.net/en/ or http://www.socionics.ibc.com.ua/, which are really the only two reliable online sources (besides e-books), because everything is peer-reviewed by a bunch of PhDs in Psychology. Really, I could remove anything and everything that isn't from those two websites or a book from this page. I'm not going to be the dick, though.

And I realize the redundancies in my comment, but I figured the more I repeat myself, the better the message will be conveyed. That, and I'm getting lazier and more annoyed after each of my replies. MichaelExe (talk) 23:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

If a notable person explicitly admits that socionics is hermeticism, then you mention in the article that said person said this, but it's still speculation, so it would likely be limited to a subsection about theories or to criticism.

http://www.socioniko.net/en/ was Dmitri Lytov's website before he sold it. In fact, there were artcles that I wrote linked from that website at one time. As far as Cybernetics and Synergetics goes in relation to the Kiev Socionics School and Alexander Bukalov, this is Dmitri Lytov's observation, and there are articles on the socionics.ibc.com.ua, one in specific written by Alexander Bukalov himself, that is notable synergetics theory in its own keyword title (this is listed on the website). Now, you say that both socioniko.net and socionics.ibc.com.ua are both credible websites, and also that it would require someone with a PHD to make the socionics-synergetics-hermeticism link credible. As far as education, I have not gone any further than a Masters Degree program, and I don't think I can find someone who has a PHD, who is also an authority in socionics, but I am pretty sure that I find someone with a PHD who can state that synergetics and cybernetics theory is hermeticism, because those theories are more widely known to people with PHDs, than say socionics. So, I'll just go find myself someone with a PHD who knows about hermeticism, cybernetics, sygernetics, and show that person all the evidence I have that socionics is just simply an offshoot of hermeticism. Have that person write a statement up that can be published, stateing such. If that is what it takes, I can do that. I know quite a few people with PHDs. --Rmcnew (talk) 01:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous. As I said before, you aim only to confuse. You want to make socionics seem as unscientific as possible to as many people as possible. Tcaudilllg (talk) 23:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Or rather, Tcaulldig, you are upset that you can not frame socionics to be more scientific than it might actually be, which would result in the article being an unneutral mess that is biased towards a viewpoint that lifts socionics up as some neo-Jungian offspring divorced from anything seemingly outdated scientificwise or esoteric. How about this, why don't we agree to stop complaining and agree to represent all viewpoints neutrally? It is easier than you would think. --Rmcnew (talk) 01:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

sources (1-11)

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)

Rmcnews score (11) (12) - Tcaudilllg score (0) [scored in the amount of viable sources]

Well it's certainly Gulenko's view that socionics is a neo-Jungian discipline. And Boukalov's. But you're not a big deal McNew. We progressive socionists have no reason to waste our energy debating your senselessness. If you put anything in the article which seems to contradict the official position that socionics is neo-Jungian, then I'll revert you. Simple as that. And then someone else will revert you too. And eventually, hopefully, you'll give up and go back to playing on your webpage. But you're not going to profit anything here. Not at bit. Tcaudilllg (talk) 08:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Tcaudilllg, I found it quite interesting that you just made a boisterous claim that quoted absolutely no sources whatsoever, and even if you were able to quote some sources, I would probably agree with them. Because I seriously doubt you could quote any sources that would conflict much with anything that I have not already said myself. That being said, you just wasted your time writting the above paragraph. --Rmcnew (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

"Socionics — the science of the socion, the socionic nature of man and the socionic structure of society, different types of people's information metabolism (IM), and different forms of relationships between them — was born on the foundation of the typologies of C.G. Jung, E. Kretschmer, A.E. Lichko, and A. Kempinsky's theory of information metabolism." --Rmcnew (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

If you put anything in the article which seems to contradict the official position that socionics is neo-Jungian, then I'll revert you - Tcaudilllg

The bolden statement above by Tcaudilllg is obvious bullshit. If you want to start talking about official positions, then you should quote your sources, because an official position concerning socionics and Jung typology does not exists, other than that Carl Jungs theory played a small part amongs a few other theorists quoted by Ausura. Also, some osocionics authors have named a few other theories, such as Dmitri Lytov stateing that the Kiev socionics school has been influenced by synergetic and cybernetic theory, and that esotericism has been present in socionics theory. And I have never disputed that socionics has been influenced by Jung, and that socionics authors have stated that Jung played at least a small part in, and that it is your opinion that socionics should be emphasized as something solely neo-jungian, which can be argued in light of the fact that socionics is also neo-freudian, neo-kepimsky, neo-kretschmer, neo-Lichko and also, neo-synergetic, neo-cybernetic, and neo-hermetic. What I dispute is intentionally isolateing socionics purely to Jungian philosophy, promoteing Jung above every body else, and then useing Jung as a reason to dispell away any notion that socionics has been influenced by a whole host of other things that have nothing to do with Jung, which isn't the only view in socionics theory.. Neutrality is representing all viewpoints, such as those from Dmitri Lytov, Rick Delong, I.P. Mameneva, Olga Tangemann, Alexander Bukalov, and also those of Victor Gulenko. If you don't want to represent all of these viewpoints, then you are obviously uninterested in presenting a neutral point of view, in which case any instances where it is seen that you were to attempt to purely isolate socionics specific to Jung above all else, those edits deserve reversion. Now, as far matureity goes, I hope that, despite some perceived behavior from you that shows likewise, that you would choose to be a mature individual who values communicating with co-editors, in order to take a neutral position on these issues. That is all I am asking from you. --Rmcnew (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this, but you're still trying to get around wikipedia's article standards, by drawing your own conclusions, and "Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions." What Tcaudilllg should have said is "If you put anything in the article outside of criticisms, which seems to contradict the official position of socionics, or does not have direct support, then I'll revert you." As I see it, you're both still tied with 0 - 0 (and wikipedia is not about winning). Either way, I've left a note on Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard and requested mediation. MichaelExe (talk) 23:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

"If you put anything in the article outside of criticisms, which seems to contradict the official position of socionics, or does not have direct support, then I'll revert you." OK, that's actually what I meant. I've never been precise with my wording. Tcaudilllg (talk) 07:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem I see with Tcaudillig making claims of an "official position" is that tcaulldig could very well be intending to use this "vague claim" to tell 'white lies' in order fool people into not sideing against his position, while at the same time createing his own claims that are impossible to back up (with sources), as an excuse to make reversions to other peoples good faith edits. Tcaudillig has no right to make "white lies" in order to justify his -bad faith- reversions. That is bullshit. In fact, he has no right to revert anything on the basis of any vague claims with bad logic, such as a supposed "official positions". Tcaudillig should just stop making these ridiculous reversions for bad reasons (or even better: stop makeing reversions to other peoples edits entirely) - he has a history of doing that. --Rmcnew (talk) 16:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

And that is besides that fact that Tcaudilllg is also removing information concerning the represention of viewpoints that do indeed exists in socionics theory, that are questionable for some socionists, but have historically been a part of socionics theory even from the founding. Such as the comparison of the socionic information elements to hindu and esoteric orderings of chakras, on the human body, for the study of health and wellness. He seems to want to uplift socionics as some "Jungian offshoot" over these other viewpoints, which is disrupting neutrality. --Rmcnew (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I quote McNew - "because an official position concerning socionics and Jung typology does not exists, other than that Carl Jungs theory played a small part amongs a few other theorists quoted by Ausura."

What??? You are willing to claim that "Socionics Has a Heavy Hermetic Influence" -- which is easily refuted as I have done above, and which is claimed by no one but you -- and at the same time state that "Jungs theory played a small part amongs a few other theorists quoted by Ausura" (emphasis added) -- when A. Augusta mentioned Jung as the primary source of socionics in her works, going so far as to comment on how she modified the theory? And then you claim to be pursuing neutrality??? --Rick DeLong (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

rmcnews 12th source

Source: 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

Chakra - is energy-centers people in the etheric double as saucerization or vortices on its surface. They originate from the central energy channels (nadi) Sushumna passing inside the spine. All chakras are in constant rotation as the wheel (in Sanskrit chakra means wheel). In their mouth open continuously flows into the energy of a higher plane. According to Charles Leadbeater, a manifestation of life flows emanating from the second aspect of the Solar Logos: 'It is what we call' primary force ': Without this flow of energy the physical body simply could not exist. Therefore, these centers are active in every human being, although those who have not yet reached a certain level of development, the chakras are rotating very slowly and only form a knot, is necessary for the perception of energy, and no more than that. , , '. In more developed centers of these people are burning and throbbing life with light, and therefore passes through them much more energy, resulting in a man opened more ability and opportunity '.

Thus, the chakras perform several functions:

Energy - the saturation of vital energy (prana) of each cell of the human body, and therefore supports their lives and communicate with each other. You can think of points as the collectors of cosmic energies. Correct thinking about direct food most of the higher centers. Solar plexus absorbs the energy of each message and consciously fertilizes manifested centers. So understanding the fiery centers is the most essential task. Medical only able to identify the disease, when will know according to cosmic energy '(Agni Yoga. Hierarchy.).Each center corresponds to a specific nerve plexus, is responsible for the efficient work of certain internal organs. 'Sickness or disease of any part of the body are accompanied by insufficient flow of the Vital Force to that part' (Charles Leadbeater). Implementation of the relationship between human bodies to transfer energy and information from higher planes to the physical and vice versa. Information - each chakra is responsible for the transfer of certain types of information. Injected energy, passing through the spokes or petals centers, is divided into component parts or qualities that define their own radiation - a vibration. Therefore, when a person develops a certain moral quality, it increases the vibration of the corresponding chakra, which further lead to a gradual disclosure. As a result of increased energy-flow toward the center, and this will be an impetus for the development of mental skills and abilities of people, as well as improve the state of the internal organs to which the energy of this chakra. Agni Yoga says: 'Mental Health is the main basis of the health of the body. When the spirit can eat right higher energies, and it will prevent the body from the dangers - that's why - can not be a doctor not a psychologist and he can not neglect the wonderful psychic energy '.

In other words, the functions of the chakras - this is an information and energy exchanges both within the person and the person with the outside world, the degree of active centers depends on the mental and physical health.

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

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

There are some editors who are attempting to isolate the credibility of a whole socionics school that is located in Moscow, Russia, for reasons that are insufficent to wikipedias standards. In comparison it should be noted that scientifically the socionics school in Kiev, Ukraine headed by Alexander Bukalov wouldn't be any more credible than the one headed by Tatyana Prokofieva in Moscow Russia. In fact, if you were to look at a webtranslated version of this article ( click here for help) from the Kiev school and compare this to the chakra article (click here for help) from the Moscow school you would see that it is absolutely rediculous to make a claim that any of the socionics schools are any more scientifically credible than the next. Because 2 or 3 editors sware up and down this material is a minority fringe isn't sufficent enough for it to be claimed as such, especially when there are several PHDs in socionics and other fields who are knowingly allowing (and even encouraging) these sort of strange research comparisons between socionics and esoteric and religious philosophies to go on, while there are no known reliable sources where any such PHD in the socionics realm has condemned these strange techniques. In any case, I am sure that this would be enough to help you make your decision. --Rmcnew (talk) 03:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Karpenko OB International Institute of Socionics, N 2, 1995 . Journal Socionics, mentology and personality psychology ", N 2, 1995.

What are we talking about

The focus of Socionics, of course, man. But in different cultural traditions of the people taken viewed from different points of view.

Tradition, focuses less on "information" as to the nature of man power, allocates certain points and levels. . Their number varies in different sources.

For example:

These centers, called Chakras in India are not in our physical body, but in another dimension, although the concentration in them is at times so intense that we get a sharp localized physical sensation. In fact, some of them quite close to the various nerve plexuses of the body, though not all. [Satprem] If we talk about the different plans in terms of human bodies or shells: physical body, etheric, astral, mental, causal - then we can trace a certain regularity: the presence in each shell of the "special points" that determine, ultimately, the course of development of the body So, if we turn to the physiology, developing being (especially in the early stages) has a hidden (neuter) singular points, whose activity leads to the formation of organs and tissues of the body. Known experiment in which the developing butterfly wing in removed one single scale - in the center of the future of a concentric pattern, and the pattern is not just broken, it does not arise. Immunologists favor of the hypothesis of the existence of the human body the only cells responsible for the processes of hematopoiesis and immunity. BV Bolotov said of the cell leaders. Bodies glands and nerve plexus are the centers of maintaining and regulating the functions of our body, like the "special points of the phase plane" of our physical well-being. A similar role is performed chakras in the etheric body, defining its "configuration" and operating features.

Physiology and anatomy study centers of our physical body.Tom, that sensitives can see (feel) the chakras and other education etheric body, we are not surprised. Several unexpected were the results of experiments conducted by AV Bukalova and colleagues [6], confirmed the presence of certain power structures, it is relevant functions of information metabolism. Moreover, their localization in the projection on the physical body corresponds to their position in the mental and vital rings model A: the vital functions in the stomach area (which, in turn, is related to the vital plane), mental - in the neck and head.

I can imagine a multi-layered, translucent image, where each layer corresponds to a level where the nerve plexus chakra, FIM, and some education like a show in different phase planes undeveloped, hidden features inherent to the core inside of us - I, soul, monad, who had put on themselves, all these shells, these increasingly tight clothing, to translate and exist in different spaces, use them as tools.

Interestingly, yantras (symbols), corresponding to the chakras are in their mark some numerological signs - the number of petals surrounding a central field. With this number can be correlated to a certain classification of the same number of characters (some typology), such as chakra Muladhara with 4 petals, located in the zone of physical, corresponds, in particular, a typology of 4 temperaments coming from Hippocrates (sanguine, choleric , phlegmatic and melancholic), or classification by type of physique. Anahata Chakra with 12 petals astrological defines a typology of the base 12 (zodiac, eastern range of animals), but there are less used the typology of the base 6 and 10. Chakra vishudha represents for us the greatest interest, as responsible for the possibility of constructing a 16-tipnyh classifications, one of them and works socionics [4]. There is a classification and a more dense level of the base 2 - the separation of the sexes, inherent in most species.

Actually, that's not true. In fact, Olga Tangemann is banned from the Humanitarian Socionics forums, that I know of, for talking about esoterism there. The socionist who calls himself Iceman made a point on another forum of stressing that the Humanitarian School does not concur with her claims. Another thing: recall that the magazine Olga submitted her article to saw fit not to publish more than half of it, because it went into a long foray about how she was inspired by esoterism to write it. Tcaudilllg (talk) 05:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I see you complete and utterly avoided listing a last name for the Olga you mentioned. [struck on account of tcaud editing in a last name after reading this] The Olga you are thinking about doesn't have anything to do with the above paragraph and she did not write it, who you are also claiming was banned from out of an internet forum that could be run by anyone. The person who wrote the above is Olga Karpenko. The article itself comes from an official publication from the "International Institute of Socionics" and is listed as "Journal Socionics, mentology and personality psychology ", N 2, 1995." That has absolutely nothing to do with some Olga being banned from an internet forum that could be run by just anyone. If something is published from a peer reviewed publication and authorized for publication by a PHD, namely Bukalov himself, than that article can be included as a source. Also, I should not that this article came about the same time that Ausura Augusta was alive and awarded a medal in recognation of a new discovery, meanwhile, esoteric things were being published in the official socionics kiev institute journal. And whether or not it is the same Olga is mute. This article was published in 1995, officially approved for publication, and was published. No more should be said about it concerning whatever else disconnected could be said about it. --Rmcnew (talk) 14:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same page? I see "Olga Krylova" and 1999 at the bottom of the page. The latest source she used was from 1999, so it's pretty safe to assume it was written some time after (unless she wrote part of it, and then the rest a couple years later). There's a math PhD named Olga Krylova, but she graduated in Hamilton, Ontario (at McMaster), but she isn't likely the Olga we want. MichaelExe (talk) 20:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is the same Olga. There seem to be alot of Olga's floating around and they are easily confused with one another. --Rmcnew (talk) 03:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

socionists have turned socionics into a therapy akin to the alternative medicine technique of vibrational medicine

This is correct: "scientifically the socionics school in Kiev, Ukraine headed by Alexander Bukalov wouldn't be any more credible than the one headed by Tatyana Prokofieva in Moscow Russia." Note: "scientifically credible." But as I understand it, the issue is not who is producing more scientifically useful research (um, neither?), but which statements can be considered representative of the field of socionics as a whole. To cite Olga Krylova's hypothesis on the relation of socionic functions to chakras, or even to suggest that "socionists believe that the functions correspond to chakras" would be incorrect, as these views are not representative of the socionics community. --Rick DeLong (talk) 16:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with what Rick Delong says above and beliefs in chakras and bio-energy are representative of the socionics community, just not necessarily among the whole of the community. Here is a website that is sponsoring a socionics workshop where the chakras and bio-energy are being discussed in relation to socionics theory, and are emphasized as something that creates good health. http://ru.laser.ru/authors/kudr/index.html --Rmcnew (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Below is a translation of http://ru.laser.ru/authors/kudr/index.html

Introduction course

The original training course Socionics, which we propose is aimed, above all, the fact that each of the students better understand themselves, saw their abilities and talents, was able to sort out their own problems. Mastery of this knowledge will help a person not to be blind in his life relatively themselves and others, knowingly make important life choices. Very specific recommendations on how to adjust the relations within the family and at work, with close and distant. The core rate - skills testing (type definition) people. The proposed method of testing is based on the art of listening to his interlocutor, and hence on the art of talk is tested on subjects of interest to him. This is akin to the art of journalistic interview. Then, the semantics of speech, we do meaningful for us to conclusions. Learning to understand the semantics of the individual (after all, the meaning given to words, everyone has his own) - is a task comparable to the task of learning a language. First, we teach the alphabet (in Socionics is a mental functions). Then study the individual model of the psyche of each of 16 types. Once this is done, we can determine psychotype rights. You will receive a full range of skills in this procedure. Practice course provides specially selected videos, printed teaching materials, games and exercises testing employed members of the group on request. The practice takes more than 3 / 4 of the course. The final part of the course (for those who have already mastered the language of Socionics) is devoted to the relationship and ways of their correction. The course provides new, but already widely proven methodology for determining the types of copyright and intertype relationships with knowledge on bio-energy (the chakras and bio). An experienced specialist will offer self-correction techniques biofield and meditation to improve your self-esteem, that really helps blend in any team and to establish family relationships. Classes are held in intensive mode - 5 hours 1 times a week on Sundays. Cozy room, tea, chamber environment (groups 5-8 persons), individual approach. Studying in a group you feel that Socionics - is not only interesting and practically useful knowledge, but also a profound personal experience, clarify your unique world view. And on this basis can a real personal growth.

This shows that socionics has been adapted as an alternative medicine and is being used as something similar to vibrational medicine. This is also similar to some energy healing methods, such as reiki.

Incoherent excerpts removed (temporarily or permanently) from article

1.

Since its invention Socionics has been viewed within the bounds of two different contexts: as a deductive science, whose purpose is to study the human psyche and second, how human relations are regulated according to social dynamics and information metabolism. Aušra Augustinavičiūtė considered both of these contexts equally important. Some socionists share her point of view, while others focus on one context. These contexts are essentially independent: the first is to determine the range of Socionics practical empirical use in a deductive scientific context, and the second for applying socionics as a sociological and psychological discipline.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick DeLong (talk • contribs) 08:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The sentence is from the russian wikipedia article. The initial webtranslation was largely incoherent and even after reconstruction, I don't think it has improved much since then conherencywise, just sounds like english instead of garbled webtranslation. --Rmcnew (talk) 17:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Reinin Article

Since Tcaud is working on Gulenko, I might as well work on the Reinin article on my user space.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rmcnew/Gregory_Reinin --Rmcnew (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)