Talk:Socionics/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Erotic Attitudes

I propose that a section on Gulenko's erotic attitudes theory of the types be added to his article. Tcaudilllg (talk) 05:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It is alright by me. The only issues I have is finding sources that fit wikipedias standards. As it stands what has already been written in that article contains alot of original research and questionable statements. My advice is to write a small subsection with reliable links and then link to the other article. Other than that, I say go for it. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I think there's an article about it on the Humanitarian Socionics site. Tcaudilllg (talk) 10:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I may have to scale back the sign section. Tcaudilllg (talk) 10:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparent outcome of the tcaudilllg vs Rmcnew case

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Socionics/Workshop

Comment is encouraged from all. Let us chastise these usurpers of the democratic will who would punish all those who seek to defend the integrity of Wikipedia articles in the face of administrative negligence. Tcaudilllg (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I think tcaulldig is just sore on account of being banned from editing for making legal threats. --Rmcnew (talk) 00:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Socionics - disambiguation

Reference to socionics, in the sense used by personality theorists, needs to be differentiated from two other senses in which the term has been used.

In the 1960s the term "socionics" was coined by the Russion born physicist and mathematician, N. Rashevsky, as the suggested title for a proposed discipline that would function analogously to "bionics". Rashevsky, a founder of mathematical biophysics, arrived at the conclusion that crucial aspects of living systems could not be explained in terms of physics, and proposed instead that many living phenomena could be better understood by looking to forms of organization characteristic of human society. In his article: "Physics, biology, and sociology: A reappraisal", Rashevsky argues that: “not only can the study of biological phenomena throw light on some physical phenomena, but that the study of social phenomena may be of value for the understanding of the structures and functions of living organisms. The possibility of a sort of "socionics" is indicated.” (see The Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics (1966) 28:283-308. To my knowledge this is the first use of the term 'socionics'. On Rashevsky see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Rashevsky

Another usage of the term socionics arose in the mid 1990s (independently of Rashevsky) with reference to multiagent based computational systems. Thomas Malsch and others envisaged a new scientific discipline based upon a synthesis of computer science and sociology, in which social theory would provide models for solving problems that had arisen in multiagent-based software, and multiagent systems would be used to model and test social theories. They suggested "Socionics" as the title for the new discipline. Several books and many articles have since been published on the topic, including a special edition of JASSS, the leading social simulation journal. Socionics, in this context, is referred to in the Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology_and_complexity_science --Asd154 (talk) 13:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

While these are correct uses of socionics and perfectly valid topics in their own right, I opine the personality theory of socionics is more notable and more widely important to most users and should be the default search result, a disambiguation page should be linked from it rather than be the default result. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 12:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

At one time there was a disambiguation page that differentiated the computer/robotic theory of the same name and several other things of the same title, although that page was part of the debate a few years ago that caused the administrative intervention. Either way, socionics is an obscure topic no matter how you look at it or whoever has used that name for whatever purpose is highly unknown. And there is only a small fraction of people in the world who even know what soionics is in any event, let alone know what it is about. It would not make any difference IMHO one way or the other.Palendromed (talk) 12:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Development and Criticism section

This section seems incomplete and full of basic grammatical errors which render it almost unintelligible. Seems maybe this section was the subject of an edit war a while back, but the current version seems to have no criticism at all and is terribly written. --Bpdlr (talk) 18:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Palendromed (talk) 12:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)The entire webpage as it now exists (or existed) did not start as a flame war, but a debate about the nature of socionics. Nearly all the credible sources for the topic are in non-english languages and differing and conflicting usages of the theory(between english speakers and non-english speakers) lead to intense questioning of the content of the wikipedia entry. The main problem with socionics is that you have two groups of people who use the theory. You have a mystical group that uses it in a mystical fashion (similar to a religion or even arguably similar to witchcraft) and you have a scientific (or pseudo-scientific) faction. These two groups are much more prevalent in Russian speaking countries, than they are say in the United States where people do not tend to tie socionics, with say questionable foreign things like energy fields in the body or astrology, and unintentionally confuse the theory with Myer-Briggs (they are two entirely different, although similar looking things). And I see that the article has been edited to no longer reflect that there exists these differentiations which was the whole point of the previous debate. Credible sources have been posted providing credibility to this, so there is no reason to remove those portions of the article. If there are spelling errors or badly formed sentences, just correct the spelling errors and the badly formed sentences. There is no reason at all to repeat past bias with the articles neutrality by removing that information.

It is incredibly silly in my opinion that people object to any acknowledgment of it; but, what people do not seem to realize is that Augusta (the founder of socionics) was using as her source material an older form of western science that conflicts with how western science is practiced now. This older form was similar to eastern medicine now with the belief that there are energy fields in the body that can be replenished and repleted within a physical being, and that caused good or bad health internally. Socionics distinguishes itself in that the first thing you hear about it is how groups of people interact to change that same energy, so it is more an external explanation of it. Other than that, it is the same old world science.

About the only thing similar to socionics in the western non-russian speaking world (that is not Myer-Briggs or Carl Jung typology) and came from the same old world science is considered a world religion, not science by any means.

Just looking at the recent history (as of December 16, 2012)

It seems like there are people beginning to make attempts to reedit the article and information is being removed to such a degree that legitimate authors, teachers and established theorists associated within socionics theory such as Olga Tangemann and Alexander Bukalov, are protesting to their removal. That is wholly inexcusable. I understand that there are people who want to clean the article up and make it more readable, but taking out legitimate information that has been there for 3 years or longer under that guise is inappropriate. Just fix the spelling errors and rewrite for readability. Any links that no longer work were (and still are) credible sources along with the connected information. I am beginning to think people with no or very little about actual knowledge about socionics are trying to change the article again to suit any number of ignorant and biased points of view that have floated around (that people erroneously think is correct over other credible information), and that is not good.Palendromed (talk) 13:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

False information in the section "Research and association with nonscientific systems"

International Institute of Socionics and SRI of Socionics does not support or conduct researches in the esoteric fields. The publication in the socionic journals a few private hypotheses does not mean their support. But some amateurs are trying to mix socionics and esoteric knowledge. Therefore, the information in this section is wrong, misinforms readers, and should be removed. --Aleksandr Bukalov (talk) 16:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

It does not make sense to me that Aleksandre Bukalov, assuming you if you are the real Bukalov, would write articles about synergetics, cosmology, astrology, chakras, acupuncture, etc and yet attempt to make a differentiation away from what those things are considered, unless you thought those things were scientifically considered by you.Palendromed (talk) 18:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Errors in the section "Esoteric hypothesis of socionics theory"

MD Basil Khorobrykh and Bukharin Oleg are unknown in the scientific socionic community and not have papers on socionics. Link to the site of their amateur hypothesis is incorrect. Must not be confused scientific Socionics with the hypotheses of enthusiasts.--Aleksandr Bukalov (talk) 16:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it is ironic that the real Aleksandre Bukalov himself wrote an article in his socionics newspaper years ago about experiements accupuncture, chakras and socionics, yet here is a person with the username Aleksandre Bukalov supposedly confirming that the research is amateur and defunct. I find that a little hard to believe.

Here is the article in the socionics newspaper:

Physics of Consciousness and Life Boukalov A.V. Jung’s archetypes, a phenomenon of clairvoyance and physics of the levionic superfluid structures

It is considered the phenomena of Jung’s archetypes, acupuncture meridians and chakras as structures of mentality and levionic superfluid bodies of the person. . The questions of an explanation of the phenomena of clairvoyance and telepathy as aspects of interaction levionic quantum condensates of biosphere of the Earth are discussed. Key words: archetype, acupuncture meridians, chakras, superfluidity, clairvoyance, telepathy, quantum levionic condensate, consciousness, DNA, integrated genome of the Earth biosphere.

http://socionics.socionic.info/ej/soc_10_5.html

I think the real Aleksandr Bukalov would have something more to say about this than that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palendromed (talk • contribs) 18:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Sampling of Socionists adhering to mystical methods

The whole sections consists of a few weasel words, original research and states that a sampling is done every years at the socionics conference in kiev, yet there is no direct source stating that there is a sampling. And even with a source stating a sampling, samplings are often used to back uncredible or even entirely madeup information. There needs to be at least a direct source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palendromed (talk • contribs) 18:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Mathematics (section to be removed 2013 March 26)

This entire section, introduced in this change by user Rmcnew, is pseudoscientific and self-discrediting, as the author clearly did not understand the words he or she was using. The superfluous use of the adjective "mathematical(ly)" alone (7 times in 6 sentences), hints at the self-insufficiency of the author's thesis. Besides that, however:

"Since Socionics is mathematically Base-16 [...]"	Any attempt to incorporate "Base-n" terminology here is a manipulation to create an impression of scientific validity where there exists none. Base-16 and Base-2 are numeral systems, not stand-in synonyms for anything with a certain number of parts, divisions, or classifications. We do not say, "Human fingers are mathematically Base-10"; we say, "Humans have 10 fingers." The idea of a base (a radix) has only to do with the representation of numbers, e.g. in a magnetic storage medium, or written on paper, not numbers themselves.
"[...] it shares a similar degree of mathematical consistency [...]"	There are no "degrees" of consistency in mathematics. Furthermore, socionics has nothing to do with mathematics.
"[...] Socionics also differs from other typologies in that it also includes a complementary Base-16 relationship set, with the intent of penning to paper the key social dynamic traits between grouped combinations of socionic types. [...]"	There is nothing "complementary" about the relationship set, i.e. no fact about the 16-ness of the types contributed to the 16-ness of the relationship set. Socionics asserts 16 relationships between 16 types; that is all that can be said.
"[...] Therefore, socionics could be considered to be within the realm of the science of social dynamics, intended to describe social behavior according to mathematical applications of Base-16, group theory, set logic and reduction of the Gulenko-Jungian notation for socionics types to hexadecimal and Base-2 bitwise operation. [...]"	"Therefore"? Is every field involving counting a "science" now? Group theory has absolutely nothing to do with anything here. Group theory only applies to mathematical groups (and note here: this is an example of a valid use of the adjective, "mathematical," where we wish to distinguish the colloquial notion of a "group," from the mathematical one). In mathematics, a group is a set (which has its own mathematical definition) that satisfies the four group axioms, known as closure, associativity, identity, and invertability. These axioms themselves have highly precise meanings; mathematics in general is a highly precise language; and used as such in this article, constitutes nothing more than unintelligible jargon. Set logic and bitwise operations have absolutely nothing to do with anything here. What is happening here, is someone noticed that binary numbers flip between two states, like a switch, and like socionics letters. That is all there is. Set logic would involve the combination of sets, of which there is none, except pairing, which can be called just that: pairing, not set logic. Bitwise operations would involve such operations as AND, OR, and XOR on two or more types, but such operations do not create any information relevant to socionics, e.g. the operation, ESTj (0101) XOR ISFj (1110) = INFp (1011), has no meaning. There isn't even such a thing as "hexadecimal bitwise operation"—it is self-contradicting, since a bit by definition is binary.
"[...] While this mathematical approach is strictly theoretical and has been criticized for lack of empirical testing [...]"	This is not a mathematical approach, in any sense of the term, and you cannot inject credence into bullshit by calling it "theoretical." This is nothing more than ignorant evangelizing and sophomoric word-dropping. I would like to believe this mathematics section is not representative of the methodology used by the rest of socionics, but if so, if so, then socionics can only be a scam, or pseudoscience at best. Note: "if."
"[...] systems theory has been the tool of socionics theorist, such as Gregory Reinin to derive theorical dichotomies within socionics theory [...]"	Never mind the poor grammar and spelling here. Systems theory applies to select systems due to their mathematical properties, e.g. emergent properties, and often exhibit well-studied patterns such as the Principle of Least Action. There is not even a citation for this sentence, and the first hit in a search for Gregory Reinin yields a page written by Rmcnew him- or herself, the user who wrote this "mathematics" section to begin with.
"[...] In 1985 Aušra Augustinavičiūtė acknowledged the mathematical theories of Reinin and wrote a book titled "The Theory of Reinin's Traits" to describe the mathematical processes of socionics theory. Mathematical methods have been a standard part of socionics theory since this time. [...]"	It's likely Rmcnew butchered Reinin's original work, but certainly the "mathematics" proffered in the aforementioned page on Reinin is no mathematics at all. If this is what has been a "standard part of socionics theory," then we now know that there is no credibility in socionics.

I will wait 90 days from today, 2012-12-26, for someone to provide reasonable defenses or edits to this section, before deleting it. Acheong87 (talk) 21:55, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the article just needs to be dumbed down. Its written like a love letter from one computer science major to another. Palendromed (talk) 21:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

But that is what I'm arguing against. I formally studied mathematics, economics, computer science, and physics, and I'm a full-time C++ developer. There's nothing to be dumbed down here; there's nothing there to begin with! This is the clear result of a child (or adult equivalent) playing a game of "House," pretending to be a "professor" or "expert" in a field he or she knows nothing about, but wishes to be respected in. Please don't assume right away (though I'm not saying you have) that I'm biased against socionics, though. I quite like MBTI, though admittedly my feelings about socionics have changed after reading this page. I'm an INFJ myself. Acheong87 (talk) 21:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually from reading some of your comments you made about the article, I concur with you. Socionics is IMHO at most pseudoscience. Although there seems to be quite a few adherents who wish to think that it is some sort of science with all the mathematic mumbo jumbo and fancy geometric shapes. It could be more properly labeled a religion or cult with a following. It is certainly not a science.Palendromed (talk) 22:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak for it being a science or not since I haven't looked at the evidence supporting it. But, yes, based on the mathematics section alone, I'd have to say there's not much there. Thanks for the responses; really appreciate the immediate feedback. Acheong87 (talk) 22:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Ummm, yeah. You should see some of the topics of the articles when you read the official russian and ukranian newsletters in english and there are bunches of sources with research comparing astrology to socionics and chakras and energy centers in the russian language. There is a also whole host of esoteric sounding pseudoscientific things being researched by both amateurs and established socionic professionals, if you could call them that. Or at least very questionable things being researched. Its bonkers. Palendromed (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I lost a little bit of my faith in humanity, reading your comment. Sounds like a battle in defense of mathematics is still lost amidst a war against science. (Feel free to erase our discussion if it's inappropriate for a Talk page. This is my first non-minor edit on Wikipedia.) I could use some advice though. Is a countdown-to-deletion necessary, or standard? Maybe not; maybe it's the very removal of a section that triggers others to defend it. If that's the case, do you think I should go ahead and remove the mathematics section? I wouldn't remove it entirely. I would try to keep as much information as is valid, in favor of socionics. Acheong87 (talk) 13:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Its been a long time since I read the mathematical material. But if I remember right, I think reinin used a type of vector math. He wrote most everything in algebric equations. And I have only seen second hand sources. In any case, the book Augusta wrote about reinin's math has never been translated into english, as far as I know. And you can not find it online. Its difficult to verify what is really true and rmcnew may have shoehorned information in. In which case, it needs to be edited by someone knowledgeable or deleted. I think that a timeframe in appropiate, unless you think you are up to the task. You can find some information about reinin's mathematics at wikisocion. Palendromed (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I found it for you: http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Reinin Palendromed (talk) 19:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Palendromed. Acheong87 (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Summary analysis of Reinin page on Wikisocion

In this page, http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Reinin, the "mathematics" is about as vacuous as what's offered on Wikipedia's page. The truth tables and logical manipulations are nothing more than the enthusiastic scribblings of an amateur, who happened to gain some insight that binary variables (T/F, 1/0, Y/N, etc.) and dichotomous traits (E/I, N/S, T/F, P/J) have striking resemblance.

(And as an aside, it's sad, because it's exactly this kind of enthusiasm, in children and young adults, that produces good mathematicians in the later years. It takes this kind of delusional faith in one's own vision to perservere through months of coming away empty-handed, waiting for an epiphany; and I guess that's true of all theoretical research. However, at some point, and crucially before one's pride becomes married to his or her work, one must have the strength to question, "Is this real? Or am I digging for patterns where none exist, to give me a reason to continue?" Unfortunately, once the enthusiast begins to derive self-esteem from his or her work, it becomes more and more impossible to introspect. I believe, if these pages are indeed representative of Reinin's work, then Reinin may have become a victim to this pattern. If these pages are representative, then I question whether Reinin was anything more than a self-proclaimed "mathematician": a hobbyist in the art.)

Getting back to the topic, regarding binary variables and dichotomous traits, of course there is a resemblance. It simply doesn't matter what symbols we choose for representing our binary variables. Whether "T/F", "E/I", "X/Y", or "Hello/World", the logic of binary sets is and has always been the same. Reinin mistakenly believed that the uncanny resemblance between binary arithmetic and his dichotomies, supported the validity of his theory, when in fact, he simply rehashed existing binary arithmetic using a new set of symbols.

Through the rest of the page, the repeated use of the word proof, prove, etc. is disturbing; it reads like the author is desperate for the audience to validate his belief in his mumbo jumbo. There is nothing being proven here, even if the simple properties of binary variables were worth that effort.

Mathematical language like Abelian have no place here, either. Yes, the group Reinin describes is an Abelian group, but of course it is, since the set of 1 and 0, with its standard logical operators as we know them, is an Abelian group itself, and all Reinin did was disguised the 1's and 0's with letters, borrowing the same set of standard logical operators. Words like Abelian, thrown around as such, are obvious indicators that the author is looking to extract credibility from the gullible.

In a final attempt to incorporate some semblance of mathematics into Reinin's "theories", the page detours into an elementary lesson in combinatorics. We've all learned in grade school how to determine combinations of colored marbles: but it has no place in socionics—"proving" that there are 11 2/3/4-letter combinations possible from a 4-letter set, says nothing about the theory at hand. It's just noise to distract the audience.

Given that this is all there is to witness, on what appears to be the most accessible page of information regarding Reinin dichotomies, I don't believe it's necessary to investigate any deeper; I believe there's enough evidence of shadiness here that we may safely conclude its invalidity; and we can expect to be deeply surprised should someone initiate a convincing defense against our analysis.

On a personal note, I feel there's probably a good reason that no one translated Augusta's work: there's probably nothing there worth translating. And we cannot forever suspend our disbelief because there exists some book out there that may turn us over. If that is the case: then let someone champion that information and bring it, translated, to our attention.

I no longer feel any mention of "mathematics" should exist on the socionics page, and by removing the mentions, we will actually be doing socionics a favor, since the page will be a little bit less ridiculous.

Acheong87 (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a significant problem with removing that information. The purpose of wikipedia is not necessarily to decide whether an event is ridiculous or not, however bad it might be; mathematics in this regard is a part of socionics history. Reinin and Augusta hit it off together, theory wise. The point is that the event of Reinin and Augusta theorizing together happened and they formed some socionics math theory together. Augusta wrote a book about it. Yeah, its horrible and hard to comprehend with the language barrier and nearly unintelligible second hand sources. It happened, so from a historians view I do not think a bad critique is justification enough to avoid mentioning it.

Now on a critical note, socionics can rarely be understood outside of an esoteric sounding understanding of things in any event, at least when it comes to explaining the actions of people practicing so called socionics. As far as anyone knows Augusta and Reinin could have been trying to mathematically make socionics fit into the western zodiac or something equally pointless. That is why you have all these so called socionists out there researching Chakras and Hinduism, and pseudoscientific beliefs like energy fields on the human body, even weird stuff like clairvoyance and telepathy for peat sakes. They are trying to find a connection to these things or maybe even prove that these pseudoscientific theories are real legit science, and therefore so is socionics. I guess I am saying that even the most hardcore socionists eventually realize that socionics is just empty science and they go searching for things to give it meaning and significance. Even if its some bogus side theory that involves pseudoscientific sounding stuff mixed with poorly constructed mathematics. Socionists usually find a way to rationalize the usefulness of the whole theory itself, even when no one else gets the rationalization behind its usefulness.

At least that is a much better explanation for the incomprehensibility of the information at hand, besides the obvious language barrier.

So, I am not really sure that I agree that the section should be entirely removed. I think it should just be rewritten to reflect a more central view on the event and theory, in any event. Socionics is screwed up no matter how you attempt to represent it and trying to make the theory sound better may just be misrepresenting socionics. And not including credible information for that reason is just marketing; the truth can never be told that way. Palendromed (talk) 05:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Advice for would-be editors in the socionics article on wikipedia.

I have a quick critique for other would-be wikipedia editors out there. Wikipedia is a place to find neutral information on a subject. Trying to hide credible information about socionics, even when controversial, is unneutral and introducing information just for the sake of making socionics more marketable or to sound better is just as unneutral. Just present all information neutrally and without bias. After you have done that, source the information. That is all wikipedia wants. And stop removing information that can be credibly sourced! At least have a lengthy conversation about it.

And socket-puppeting to vandalize the socionics article is a big no-no on wikipedia. Completely bad form who ever did that for a whole week! Yes, there are two factions of socionics where you have the mystical socionists and the want-to-be scientific sounding ones. Its hard to write about the differentiation without writing a whole section that is original research. There is little way to source it other than to post some credible links to esoteric socionic resources. And using the words "few" or "some" are weasel words and if you have to use those words, than you probably should be using some source material instead. Palendromed (talk) 04:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect information

LII is socionics INTj, MBTI INTP; not the other way around (it's listed as socionics INTp and MBTI INTJ). This reverse seems to be an error with all of the introverted types.

72.152.110.249 (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems this was caused by one person making the MBTI types match letter wise to the socionics type, then someone trying to fix it, but swapping the socionics j/p instead of the MBTI J/P. Since this was very recent I went ahead and fixed it since it should be uncontroversial. 72.152.110.249 (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems the errors are more extensive than I first noticed, the roles, eg. "Analyist / Mastermind" are also mismatched on the j/p axis (that might be why he corrected it the other way, not noticing the LII/INTp etc mismatch this caused, so it's still incorrect) 72.152.110.249 (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

This is what seems to have happened in regards to Socionics vis a vis Jung

Regarding the long and very thought-out comment by Acheong87 as well as the other comments: you are correct but you fail to understand why. Jung wrote a lot about alchemy and such things, mysticism, because he wanted to turn it on it's head and understand why people thought that way in the first place. This is what his theory of the "collective unconcious" is. This also influenced his work on his theory about the eight mental functions (Se, Si, Fe, Fi, Te, Ti, Ne, Ni). Most specifically, he was very interested in the process of symbolism and how people create symbols - his view of a true Symbol was that of something that combined two or more mental processes to create "something more" as in e.g. a work of art for example. This is, funny enough, exactly the process we are seeing here - you are discussing the mathematics as if the system had any validity of it's own or if the fact that it is systematic is even the point - the point is the symbolism, as in Tarot or similar. If you draw a pentagram in blood (combining the symbolism in elementalism, blood taboo, mind-matter correlation, life-energy, etc.) then that could technically be misunderstood as an exercise in geometry but it is very much not.

What these people are trying to do is find new symbolism (Ni) not new "systems of pure systematization as in mathematics" (Ti) or even "systems of external categorization and process-making" (Te).

85.229.143.90 (talk) 11:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism and semi-protection

This page was recently vandalized by an unregistered user, engaging in edit warring. On these grounds I am requesting temporary semi-protection. Laitr Keiows (talk) 00:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Moreover, this page was semi-protected for two times in the past, so it may worth putting it into an extended semi-protection mode. Laitr Keiows (talk) 01:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

English language references?

It seems like few of the citations are from English language publications and it's unlikely that readers of the English Wikipedia also know Russian or Ukrainian. Are there English language references? I have several degrees in Sociology and I've never even heard of this subdiscipline before. I think it is completely unknown in the West. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 22:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately there are very few references from English language publications. The several English language books published are largely inferior in quality to the Russian books. However, they exist (and did not used to some years ago) so they might provide a framework for beginning to fix this page. However a deeper account of the history and various different people and camps that have existed inside socionics would be, ultimately, much more informative. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• Why, it's not linked with sociology, anyway. It's just a MBTI variation with pseudo-scientific mechanistic interpretations =) Akim Dubrow (talk) 04:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Somehow, this is why the "I-type" sometimes change their p with j and viceversa

Extroverse type use more their Ego, Introverse type can use more their Id or Ego. Coincidentally, in case of Introverse types you get MBTI cognitive function stacks if you read the Socionics stack backward ( 8->7->6->5 ). Anyway, at www.Socionics.com INTP and INTJ are converted to INTx, like other I-types --2.38.157.218 (talk) 10:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

According to socionics, type never change. --Charamel (talk) 13:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about type changes, but about the fact that I-types like INTp in Socionics can be both INTP or INTJ in MBTI, as so the equivalence of INTP/INTj, for example, is not demonstrated. The official site itself consider both INTj and INTp equivalent type for INTP in Socionics. In less words, if you score IxxP or IxxJ in MBTI, doesn't mean you're respectively Ixxj or Ixxp in Socionics. --93.46.7.242 (talk) 07:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

In fact, the MBTI tests do NOT give such difference between socionics and MBTI introverted types. P still maps to "irrational" (p), even for introverts. Many people think that INTJ is INTp, but that is the result of difference in functions that socionics and MBTI think introverts have. INTJ's first two functions, according to MBTI are Ni and Te, respectively. Socionics says INTj has Ti and Ne, respectively. However, the MBTI and socionics tests still consider INTJ and INTj the same type, not INTJ and INTp. The reason why it looks so weird are the significant differences between socionics and MBTI. The types are the same, but the theories behind MBTI and socionics are not. And sometimes these theories are conflicting. Ellioh (talk) 11:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Bad ISBN

Because it is causing a Checkwiki error #73: "ISBN-13 with wrong checksum", I removed the ISBN from the entry:

Silin A.N. Social management: Dictionary-Handbook: Textbook. - Moscow, 2009. - 176 с. - ISBN 978-5-98704-431-6.

I have tried unsuccessfully to locate the correct ISBN on the Internet. If I had the original Russian title of the publication, I could much more easily find the correct ISBN. Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Because it is causing a Checkwiki error #70: "ISBN with wrong length", I removed the ISBN from the entry:

Ivasenko A.H., Nikonova Y.I., Tsevelev V. V. “Organizational Behavior: 100 exam answers: Tutorial. - M.: Flint, 2011 - 296. - ISBN 978-5-9765-1292

I have tried unsuccessfully to locate the correct ISBN on the Internet. Is the book English or another language? If English, the source should be verified because I got zero Google or WorldCat hits on simply "Ivasenko Organizational Behavior". If another language, we can more easily find the correct ISBN with bibliographical information in the original language (and characters). Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Prof. Bogomaz

Why is cited only one criticism, not a full assessment of the real? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socionics&diff=695342975&oldid=695342880 --Sounderk (talk) 11:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Guy (Help!), but I do not understand why the phrase "Prof. S. A. Bogomaz state that there were a huge flow of psuedoscientific-popular, largely too enthusiastic publications in the field, that damages socionics in the eyes of psychological society of Russia.[8][clarification needed]" may be cited, and the second part "At the same time Prof. S.A. Bogomaz considers the socionic typology as an version of post-Jung typology and believes that on a number of criteria it is more perspective than the American version (MBTI) for the study of the differences between people, because it expands the volume of the typological features and offers an opportunity to form various typological groups with different motivations, attitudes, temperament, perception of information and thinking styles. It is also important the existence of preconditions to study intertype relations, that are substantially not developed within MBTI. S.A.Bogomaz thinks that the creation of the theory of intertype relationships is undoubtedly contribution of A.Augustinavichiute to the development of Jung typology " is removed by "More WP:PRIMARY"?--Sounderk (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

English language sources?

This is en.wiki, not ru.wiki. Where are the (secondary) academic peer-reviewed publications that demonstrate that this subject is notable as a theory/ approach in English language academic publications, or indeed in English-language based psychology in general? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

What is Information Metabolism? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

From the Greek "exchange of information"--Sounderk (talk) 14:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Was that via Lithuanian ? And the first question? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Lithuanian and Russian. Today, in many languages, including English. For example Horwood J., Maw A. Theatre Teams Assembled Using Personality Profiles Can Improve Predicted Teamworking Scores // Bulletin of The Royal College of Surgeons of England. - 2012. - Vol. 94. - No 3. - Pp. 1-6

» Socionics is a relatively new science developed and popularised by Ausra Augustinaviciute in the 1970s. Augustinaviciute and her colleagues worked with Carl Jung’s personality typologies to develop personalitybased relationship profiles. It was found that the nature and development of interpersonal relationships (both professional and personal) are far from random. Instead, they are based on how well suited each individual’s psychological profiles are to one another, allowing Augustinaviciute to develop 16 ‘socionic types’ (Table 2) predicting and describing the interpersonal relationships between any combination of Jung’s personality types.»

--Sounderk (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Let's put it this way - how many of the 140 sources, supporting this article, are in English? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I have not counted, but a number of sources in English can still be put into the article.--Sounderk (talk) 16:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I counted about 20 English sources out of the total of 140. But for many, while the title is given in English, the source text is in Russian. I would recommend adding English language sources to help establish notability of the subject in the English language. There's nothing wrong with Russian or Lithuanian sources, provided they are secondary ones, rather than purely descriptive primary ones. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Socionists treating socionics as pre-science

I want to discuss this edit. There is a number of socionists and former socionists stating that in present form socionics is not a science but pre-science or parascience (especially Lytov and Churyumov). In the above-mentioned edit the opinion of Churyumov was removed. He has published two «monographs» on the subject (typical self-published material of socionics) and is mentioned on the site of International institute of socionics among the «heads of departments» as a «well-known specialist»: «В число руководителей отделов и подразделений Международного института соционики входят известные специалисты по соционике: доктора философии В.Д.Ермак, О.Б.Карпенко, С.И.Чурюмов, Г.А.Шульман, Г.В.Чикирисова, И.Ю.Литвиненко, Я.А.Дубров.». Could their opinions be mentioned among more respectable philosophers and psychologists? --Melirius (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Socionics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130425063737/http://en.socionicasys.ru:80/ to http://en.socionicasys.ru

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Socionics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111009024311/http://www.hilarygray.btinternet.co.uk/Abstracts-etc.pdf to http://www.hilarygray.btinternet.co.uk/Abstracts-etc.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Criticism

Main article: Myers-Briggs Type Indicator § Criticism

Dmitri Lytov and Marianna Lytova claim that "main spheres of application of socionics are almost the same as for the Myers-Briggs Type Theory, except for one particular thing: MBTI deals only with intertype differences, while socionics also deals with intertype compatibility"

In accordance with R. Bluthner and E. Hochnadel, there are important differences between socionics and MBTI, yet even in this article MBTI types are formally converted to types in socionics. Therefore, any reader can conclude that there are substantial similarities between both theories. Given that, it is clear socionics may share some of the criticisms of the MBTI.

Whilst MBTI has been substantially tested and has not held up to scrutiny, it is not known that socionics has ever been scientifically tested. As socionics can be tested, it is not pseudo-science, but as it has not been put up to scientific scrutiny, it is currently no more than an unsubstantiated hypothesis, and the fact that MBTI has been disregarded by professionals suggests that socionics may well share a similar fate if it were subjected to the same scrutiny.

Section above was saved from edit warring. Laitr Keiows (talk) 02:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Socionics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://inderscience.metapress.com/content/h040q1h67200h2n4/fulltext.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://inderscience.metapress.com/content/h040q1h67200h2n4/fulltext.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100325133205/http://6201.org.ua:80/load/72-1-0-642 to http://6201.org.ua/load/72-1-0-642
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090430072536/http://socionics.kiev.ua:80/articles/methodology/type-name to http://socionics.kiev.ua/articles/methodology/type-name/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Criticism, where is it?

Why is there no section about criticism on socionics? Apart from one sentence which states there is criticism, but doesn't give any examples. The whole article is overly positive and praising for socionics. Therefore a complete lack of criticism in any form gives the impression this article is nothing more than advertising for socionics and in no way a neutral encyclopedia article.

The article also completely lacks to mention that socionics isn't used professionally and especially not recognized as a valid personality theory in any country or institution outside of eastern europe.84.159.122.123 (talk) 14:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Crack pseudo-science, it is. 213.87.134.215 (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree, this article reads like an advertisement or, at the very least, whitewashing, sweeping all criticism under the carpet. - Sikon (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Why does this article not mention that socionics is pseudoscience? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.23.245.119 (talk) 13:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree Socionics is pseudoscience. 41.141.223.243 (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Socionics IS science. It is falsifiable. --Charamel (talk) 13:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Yet is it so fundamentally flawed, unproven, and unverified, so by all practical means it is unworthy of critique. This is my opinion so I wouldn't risk adding it to the article, but observed absence of critique matches with my argument. Laitr Keiows (talk) 07:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

There used to be a section for criticism, however in the huge erosion of the page over the course of the last few years many things have been changed mostly due to random people who come and go. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Strongly agree S. is a pseudo-scientific activity. Basically this practice covers a narrow region of ex-USSR limited by Russian speaking community and is not reported widely in peer-review journals. The reference list is currently overflown of poor ranked college handouts (^[23][24][26]). Hardman Feidlimid (talk) 17:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I suppose this is a typical case of Wikipedia:Fringe theories. I think the article should be trimmed a lot, and should clearly indicate socionics is a fringe theory neither accepted nor even discussed by mainstream science. --Nomad (talk) 02:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I added some criticism from Russian WP. The overall state of article is incredibly bad, it is full of statements taken from socionists themselves. The lack of critics is typical for fringe science, that is usually not discussed in the respectable journals. There were two outbreaks of socionists in Russian WP, which ended both by blocking of their participants. On a socionics conference after the first one they discussed the course of invasion in Russian WP and said that the article in English WP was made by them (the link to video of the conference in Russian). So NPoV is really absent here. --Melirius (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

It proposed only 4 dubious sources, including Bogomaz 15 years ago relied on Article 1995, which is 20 years. And two philosophers, who are neither psychologists nor sociologists. And it is invalid outdated message is offered in the preamble to the 2015? Now socionics is studied in more than 180 state universities, the number of academic articles and more than 2,500 practical applications of socionics in various fields. Therefore, the proposed changes are not significant according to the rules of Wikipedia.--Sounderk (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I want to remind, that WP:NPoV. Due and undue weight: "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth). To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject".

All the criticism, but criticism is correct, it should be placed in the section "criticism". Additionally, you must know that this is all the criticism that can be collected. And it's only 4 source, who always repeated in the presentation. Academic sources opposite to consider and use socionics more 2500. It should be understood that the ratio between these sources is 4: 2500. Therefore, they have very little value in preabbule article can not be placed.--Sounderk (talk) 20:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

After administrator’s explaining Guy (Help!) I am not going to delete this criticism. But I want to elaborate my point of view on these controversial changes. This is a mistake or a selective presentation of sources. 1. Among 2500 academic sources Melirius found only 5 you can some any critical material about socionics. He put them at the very first part of the article. But first - it's just a personal web - blog. 2 source - a philosophers: Monastyrsky and Mineev, who are neither psychologists nor sociologists. But a number of other philosophers have a positive opinion of socionics. Monastysaky himself proposes to pay attention to "the concept of socionics type". Also in the book of the philosopher Meneev, the term "socionics" is used only once (!) without any reference and analysis. 4 - one phrase: prof. Shmelev does not writes about Socionics, but about "authors of Socionics", because it is a review of the book about the MBTI. 5. Prof. Bogomaz worked on socionics and even his own socionics test. Therefore, he did not criticize socionics at all. When Melirius writes "Prof. S.A. Bogomaz state that there were a huge flow of psuedoscientific-popular, largely too enthusiastic publications in the field, that damages socionics in the eyes of psychological society of Russia". Melirius ignores that Bogomaz wrote this back in 2000, with reference to his own 1995 paper. Thus, this is not the secondary source, but the primary one. And now, in 2015, that information is just out of date! But Melirius didn’t write that Prof. Bogomaz gave his assessment of the works of other authors of socionics as a secondary source: "At the same time Prof. S.A. Bogomaz considers the socionic typology as an version of post-Jung typology and believes that on a number of criteria it is more perspective than the American version (MBTI) for the study of the differences between people, because it expands the volume of the typological features and offers an opportunity to form various typological groups with different motivations, attitudes, temperament, perception of information and thinking styles. It is also important the existence of preconditions to study intertype relations, that are substantially not developed within MBTI. S.A. Bogomaz thinks that the creation of the theory of intertype relationships is undoubtedly contribution of A.Augustinavichiute to the development of Jung typologies " 6. Thus, such "criticism" is very questionable and simply incorrect. At the same time socionics is taught in more than 150 public universities either as a separate discipline, or as part of other disciplines and is used in aviation and aerospace, sport pedagogy, management and other fields. 7. I wrote that that it was not suitable especially for the beginning of the article. We need to create a separate section of "criticism" at the end of the article, as is customary in other articles of Wikipedia. But the criticism should be constructive, valid and correct.--Sounderk (talk)--Sounderk (talk) 12:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

While it looks like there isn't a lot of direct criticism of socionics, there is a great deal of criticism regarding the ideologies upon which it is based (Such as the MBTI and the work of Carl Jung). I feel that at least those criticisms should be mentioned under a criticism section if not the direct criticisms of socionics. Danegraphics (talk) 03:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

It is very bad in terms of scientific significance that there's practically none of critical review to socionics. This makes socionics even less reputable. Since Sounderk is constantly removes anything even remotely related to criticism from the article (like he wants to diminish the importance socionics even further), I made the section as neutral as possible. If you know any published critique to socionics, please add it to the relevant section. Let's show that socionics is a really solid science, and can stand against all and any criticism! Laitr Keiows (talk) 02:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, but socionics does not depend on the MBTI! Thanks.--Sounderk (talk) 10:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

If you have a better idea, go ahead with it. Laitr Keiows (talk) 07:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Psychology as a science has a number of important journals around the globe. Where are the academic articles discussing socionics in them? Where are the links? Is this theory completely ignored by the actual field of psychology? If so, why does it even have an article? The only sources cited are things entirely dedicated to socionics. There are sites like socionic.info, socionics.ru, socionics.us, sociosphera.com, socionics.com and blogs on blogspot (!) among the sources. The papers used as sources come from The International Institute of Socionics. What type of institution is it? Is it an academic institution, recognized by the psychology community? Is it a for-profit institution, pushing socionics for business reasons? Why should all the sources listed be more relevant than what actual psychologists say about it in sources recognized by the scientific community? All these doubts and more should be in the article, and most of the sources should be questioned and eliminated. This entire voice is immensely problematic and goes against the very concept of what science is and how it works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.182.54.175 (talk) 21:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Socionics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080920025642/http://socionics.ru/index_eng.htm to http://www.socionics.ru/index_eng.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://en.socionicasys.ru/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121124123438/http://fgosvpo.ru/uploadfiles/poops/1/4/20110710135625.pdf to http://fgosvpo.ru/uploadfiles/poops/1/4/20110710135625.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131225110649/http://zhurnal.ape.relarn.ru/articles/2006/040.pdf to http://zhurnal.ape.relarn.ru/articles/2006/040.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131225110649/http://zhurnal.ape.relarn.ru/articles/2006/040.pdf to http://zhurnal.ape.relarn.ru/articles/2006/040.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:27, 27 July 2017 (UTC)