Talk:Socionics/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Bogomaz, Monastyrsky, and others: incorrect citation

1. Pancarlos, a rewritten "criticism" from Bogomaz was written back in 2000 at the beginning of his research on socionics and the correction of some disadvantages of socionics. This is just an introduction to the study. Therefore, to quote it as the shortcomings of socionics in 2018 is very incorrect and borders on falsification. It is precisely these corrections and refinements of socionics that are devoted to his doctoral dissertation, monograph of 2000 and the cycle of works of 2000-2010! Read them to begin with, before rewriting unscrupulous quotes! This is normal, when the researcher at the beginning of the work points out some shortcomings, which he is going to correct. Even the phrase "The factual discredits of socionics in the eyes of psychologists" refers to the 1995 article - 23 years ago! However, we must quote the result of the work, and not its beginning.

2. You rewrite the unscrupulous quotes from Monastyrsky, not knowing that he never called socionics "pseudoscience". On the contrary, in this article he suggests "turning to the notion of a socionic type" for carrying out some research! Read this work. At the same Monastyrsky, recognizing the potential of socionics, proposes "to turn to the concept of a socionic type for carrying out some research in the field of the methodology of science.

3. One can not quote an illiterate journalist who, even from the Russian Wiki, copied the texts with big mistakes, without understanding what is written there. She was subjected to great criticism. This is not an authoritative source.

4. And what does Magun's remark about the problems of Russian education have to other countries of Eastern Europe, in which socionics develops? This quote is also incorrect, because it applies only to one country.

5. WP:NOR. Mistake and original research: Jung's analytical psychology is not related to typology. In the article quoted by Wallis this also does not exist.--Sounderk (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Is Bogomaz really that approving of socionics?

Hi! Please compare Socionics#Criticism:

Psychophysiologist Sergey Bogomaz considered socionics post-Jungian typology which is more promising than MBTI due to the inclusion of greater number of typological features and the formulation of prerequisites for the study of intertype relationships.[178] He have found the theory of intertype relationships a valuable contribution of Aušra Augustinavičiūtė to Jungian psychology. [178] In later publications Bogomaz used socionics and Jungian typology for psychological research [179][180][181]

with the translation of the corresponding text in ruwiki (starting from "По мнению С. А. Богомаза..."):

According to Sergey Bogomaz, there is no reason for considering socionics as a separate science. He considers socionic typology as a Russian version of post-Jung typology, similar to the Myers-Briggs typology. Bogomaz considers the construction of the theory of intertype relationships to be an undoubted contribution of Augustinavichiute to the development of Jung typology, also noting that there is few experimental data in socionics, there is no empirical verification of many claims, and there are many unsystematic pseudoscientific publications that discredit socionics

I believe that the first text takes only positive part of the Bogomaz's words and ignores the rest, which is wrong. Wikisaurus (talk) 13:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikisaurus, definitely, and I will now fix that. Crossroads ^-talk- 14:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I made this edit; feel free to make further suggestions. Crossroads ^-talk- 14:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The criticism of socionics by S. Bogomaz was back in 1996, but his own later works eliminated these problems

By the WP:RS Wiki itself is not a reliable source. This applies to ru-wiki even more. I will show how the ru-wiki manipulates quotes and misleads English-speaking users. Therefore, I have translated some excerpts from the scientific work of prof. S. Bogomaz dedicated to socionics. Bogomaz S.A. Doctor of Psychology, Professor (Tomsk State University, Department of Biomedical Disciplines) PSYCHOLOGICAL TYPES C.G. JUNG, PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGICAL TYPES AND INTERTYPE RELATIONS, Tomsk 2000 [1]. Here is a preface to his work written by prof. V. Kabrin:

Extended content

The modern version of K. Jung's typology (post-Jung's typology) is of increasing interest among various specialists who have devoted their activities to the study of styles of thinking and human behavior, as well as to the study of the relationship between people. In the textbook offered to readers, the author's interpretation of this typology is presented, based on the idea of ​​the orientation of the human psyche to two main ways of perceiving information and two main ways of assessing it, which depend on the features of the morphofunctional organization of the cerebral hemispheres. The main principle in the selection of material was the principle of its experimental, statistical verification. The work formulates some ideas about possible directions scientific research in line with the post-Jung typology. At the same time, the work is maximally focused on a wide circle of readers, written in an accessible language and easy to understanding. After reading it, you can understand what determines the peculiarities of your thinking and behavior, from what factors your relationship with others may depend, how to evaluate the degree of comfort and the degree of conflict in your relationship. To do this, the work provides tests that allow you to find out your psychological and psychophysiological types, presents schemes for the quantitative assessment of intertype relationships. The advantage of the work is the system of comparing these three levels of the human psychological world. In general, the work demystifies Jung's typology, allows us to consider it as one of the most important and promising methods of differential psychology. Doctor of Psychology, Professor V. I. Kabrin Prof. S. Bogomaz: In the former Soviet Union, K. Jung's typology gained fame and development in the eighties thanks to the works of Aushra Augustinavichiute (1983)... It should be noted that prior to acquaintance with C. Jung's typological work A.Augustinavichiute studied the works of P. Gannushkin, E. Krechmer, Z. Freud, K. Leonhard, O. Weininger, T. Parsons, V. Tatarkevich, M. Ossovskaya, E. From, I. Kon and other scientists. This allowed her to properly to relate to the ideas of a Swiss psychiatrist, to assess their significance, to understand the principles of classification of people proposed by him...A.Augustinavichiute wrote (1991) that in her understanding of K.Jung's ideas the original theory of information metabolism helped a lot Polish psychiatrist A. Kempinski. This theory has had a significant influence on her ideas about Jung's types, as some information structures that naturally perceive information from the outside world and in a specific way exchanging information with other information structures...A.Augustinavichiute called the typology modified by her "socionics", as she believed that each of Jung's types performs in society a certain social role. Clarification of this role could, in her opinion, contribute to the achievement of social harmony and the progress of society. This could be achieved, in particular, due to deliberate formation of relationships between different types. These relations, according to Aushra, are formed naturally on the basis of features of information exchange between types, they can be studied and predict. The construction of the theory of intertype relationships is undoubted contribution of A. Augustinavichiute to the development of K. Jung's typology...In contrast, American psychologists, apparently, believe that between psychological types, any relations. In their version of the typology, something even remotely similar to the table of intertype relations compiled by A. Augustinavichiute, not occurs (Gulenko, Tyschenko, 1997). Further development of the domestic version of the post-Jung typology was also associated with the works of Kiev researchers... They gave practical orientation of socionics, made a significant contribution to the development of its theoretical constructions, clarified the concept of career guidance types and peculiarities of interaction of types in groups... However, at present (it was written in 2000, that is, 20 years ago!) to isolate socionics into an independent there is no clear basis for science - only a small amount of experimental data... On the other hand, the appearance in large quantities of unsystematic pseudoscientific popular publications that are overly enthusiastic (sometimes even with elements of excitement) alienated many psychologists and largely discredited the Jung-Augustinavichute typology in their eyes (Vasiliev V.N., Ramazanova A.N. P.., Bogomaz S.A. Get to know others - find yourself (Lectures on psychological types and their relationships). - Tomsk,1996. - 185 p)...My own research experience confirms this point. view and indicates that Jung's typology is built on a strong rational basis and can be successfully used in those areas psychology and physiology of higher nervous activity, where there is the need to differentiate different forms of human response to various influences. It seems especially promising the domestic version of the post-Jung typology, since it gives the ability to work with a larger number of typological features in comparison with the American version of the typology, allows form various typological groups that differ motivation, attitudes, temperament, perception of information and styles of thinking, and also creates the prerequisites for the study of mechanisms interpersonal relationships...

Thus, S. Bogomaz himself writes that his criticism of socionics refers to 1996! But by 2000, he had already defended his doctoral dissertation on the connection between psychophysiology and socionics, became a professor, and over the next 20 years carried out a number of studies related to socionics and other branches of psychology. And, of course, he never criticized socionics again, because his work and the work of his colleagues were precisely aimed at eliminating some of the problems he noted 24 years ago, in 1996. Thus, S. Bogomaz's criticism of socionics, placed from the ru-wiki in this article, has not been relevant for 20 years and is only of historical interest. Therefore, its positioning as actual is a manipulation of quotations while ignoring the historical sequence of events. --ThesariusQ (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Plain text symbols

▲ △ ■ □ ● ○ ▙ ◳ (the latter two need improvement) Tuvalkin (talk) 14:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Criticism?

The section labeled criticism is, in fact, a series of statements by those who believe in this pseudoscience that criticism is not uniform. It appears to be uniform in the mainstream sciences - but this is not apparent. I believe there is a whitewashing attempt by promotors of this belief and leave this as a placeholder for more involved editors to comment. Ifnord (talk) 22:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that the Criticism that does exist of Socionics has not been properly discussed in the article. All the criticism has been stuck as a series of sources behind the word 'pseudoscientific' in the opening sentence, rather than discussed in the appropriate section, making the section confusing to read. I say these criticisms should be discussed openly and transparently, not hidden in an attempt to poison the well. Echidna1000 (talk) 02:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Pseudoscience - 2

ADDED BY JACK: I think it reasonable for there to be a section underneath discussing the 'scientific' status of Socionics, but calling it a 'pseudoscientific' off the bat is unfair, given that the MBTI page doesn't begin this way. There exist whole communities of socionists who accept that the theory is not a 'science', but a theory that is being tested out by practitioners that is in need of greater academic and empirical attention. Only some communities, mostly in the east, falsely claim socionics to be a science, so this is tarring a theory with a very large number of different interpretations with the same brush. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Echidna1000 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Socionics differs from MBTI (which itself suffers from a lack of scientific status) by the presence of the theory of relations between types, which makes it something like a modern divination practice. There are no proofs for the existence of its 16 types, the stability of these types over time, or the dichotomy of traits. --Q Valda (talk) 02:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• after next revert like this - [2] - [3] - [4] - I will contact the administrators --Q Valda (talk) 12:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • In the ru-wiki, the socionics mediator Helgo13 decided to strictly apply the fundamental rule of Wikipedia WP:NPOV [5] By wiki rules,

"NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the other two are" Verifiability "and" No original research ". These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and, because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three. This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus".

Member Q Valda is trying to challenge this decision. He even threatened the mediator Helgo13, as the mediator Helgo13 himself defined:

“First, you have to stop having a discussion like this ('juggling ... will not end well”) if you don’t want problems when discussing your actions in a much wider circle than the local mediation. You seem to be a mediator, but instead of a solution, you create a conflict yourself, and out of the blue. Second, you were offered specific questions on SALW, but there was no answer to them. And something tells me that the answer to the specific question of whether the current wording in the article suits (this is exactly what worries me the most at the moment), we will never hear.- Q Valda 16:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The wording in the article is not satisfactory, since it is not in accordance with the result. And I don't need to threaten me with a "broad discussion", you have the right to do so, as I have the right to use administrative powers. - Best regards, Helgo13 • (Obs.) 17:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

[6]

In the edits of user Q Valda about socionics, there is falsification and manipulation in the retelling of an authoritative source. This is an attempt to prove that the existence of psychological types is rejected by psychology. In doing so, he even tries to refer to an article that refutes this very point of view. In this work, 4 stable psychological types are identified. Even the title of the article by Gerlach M., Farb B., Revelle W., Nunes Amaral L. A. A robust data-driven approach identifies four personality types across four large data sets // Nature Human Behavior. - 2018. - No. 2 (September). - S. 735-742. [7]. In addition, the isolation of psychological types is one of the main scientific methods in psychology. In all other sources, which the user Q Valda tries to put in the preamble of the article, the word "socionics" is mentioned only once. Moreover, these sources are not written by experts, not psychologists and cannot be considered authoritative on the topic of socionics. In ru-wiki, these sources were rejected by the intermediary for citation on Wikipedia:

"To be honest, I agree with the bottom line. In terms of the fact that there is no reason to include this opinion in the preamble. There are too few sources that consider in sufficient detail the issue of pseudoscience of socionics (in contrast to the same NC). You can't even write a section on them properly, and in order to include this in the preamble, kmk, such a section must first appear. After all, the preamble is the summary of the article. --ptQa 11:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)--"

[8]Sounderk (talk) 12:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• • • An example of an academic tertiary source: Prof. Krysko V. Dictionary of Social Psychology. - SPb.: Peter, 2003 .-- 416 p. - ISBN 5-314-00021-0

"Socionics is a science that draws methodology from sociology, informatics and psychology and is focused on improving society, in which for each individual belonging to a certain psychological type there is a place in socially useful activity."

--Sounderk (talk) 13:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• • • • 1) Krysko is the military psychologist, not reliable by default in the fields of differential psychology and science studies. As far as I know his next books on psychology (after Dictionary, 2003) did not mention socionics again. 2) existence of personality types is extremely controversial, according to RS. If they exist, they are not the ones postulated in socionics. 3) please answer the questions - where is the proof of the existence of 16 socionic types? of their innate and unchangeable nature throughout life? of dichotomy of personality traits? Unfortunately, none is available in the current version of the article --Q Valda (talk) 00:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, but who are Mineev, Sergeev, Sokol'chik, Zhilina, Salpagarova, Podymov, Volkov, Ivashechkina, Ignatjev, and Abashkina? Are they more reliable sources than Krysko? Why? Are they impartial? Do their criticisms apply to Socionics in general or particular practices of Socionics?

Information exists in discrete categories, such as being 'implicit' or 'explicit', 'descriptive' or 'prescriptive', etc. that are obvious enough that people don't even subject that to an empirical test. That's the whole basis in Socionics for there being different types of information metabolism. The 'personality types' of Socionics are not constructed in the same way they are postulated by the MBTI which relies on questionable claims about bimodal variation in obviously normally distributed constructs.

The chief claim made about people by Socionics, (and Jung) is the law of psychological asymmetry, i.e. that if you are invested and focused in one aspect of information, you are less invested and focused in other aspects of information. The more you are inclined to speculate on multiple alternative possibilities to the present moment, the less focused in the present. Is that controversial to say?

The second claim made about people by Socionics is that, while people certainly grow, realise new things about themselves, and develop over time, they don't change fundamentally into different people with opposite values to what they are now. That is an observation of people that is also not controversial to say. Echidna1000 (talk) 03:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Socionics have extraordinarily strong associations with workplace leadership and income (r² = 0.89) https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=socionics+correlation&oq=socion#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3DiXhEmR5T4jcJ , it seems outright stupid to completely and utterly denounce it, let's make the wording more subtle and included after the first couple of sentences in order to cushion the blow of the wording and make the data less biased Pogchampange (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Your link just goes to a set of search results. The top result (is that the one you meant?) is from a known predatory publisher. At any rate, it is important that readers have proper context for understanding the article, and that this is completely unaccepted outside of a small echo chamber of proponents is as important a detail as there could be. MrOllie (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

How to find consensus

My suggestion to all participants in the conflict and the war of revisions is as follows. According to Wiki rules, the definition of the subject of an article should be neutral,WP:POV. The preamble of the article should contain the generalized content of the article. The article contains a section of criticism, it is there the critical reviews of socionics should be placed. Now they are in the definition of the subject of the article, which is a violation of the rules. But their number is small compared to other sources cited in the article. Moreover, the weight and reliability of some of them are questionable. Therefore, they need to be further investigated. If these critical sources really have significant weight, on their basis the relevant information will be placed in the preamble of the article in accordance with the WP:RSUW.--ThesariusQ (talk) 17:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

That's a misstatement of what WP:POV requires. It requires that we follow the view of the sources, not that the article should express no judgment at all (see WP:GEVAL). Where lots of sources call a subject a pseudoscience (as is the case here) we must follow suit, and we must not tuck that away into a separate criticism section. Readers need context right away, and the level of acceptance of a theory is extremely important for that. - MrOllie (talk) 18:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

That's a misstatement of my proposal. Only the definition of the subject of socionics should be neutral, and the content of the article is determined by reliable sources and their weight.--ThesariusQ (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

When a theory is pseudoscientific there is no violation of the rules to call it what it is, see WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE — part of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view —

Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science, but characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods. Conversely, by its very nature, scientific consensus is the majority viewpoint of scientists towards a topic. Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other [...] The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included. This helps us to describe differing views fairly.

So, "critical views of socionics" must be in the very first words of article. And of course, the whole article should be rewritten to make it clear that it is a pseudoscientific theory --Q Valda (talk) 20:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Based on what reliable sources do you classify socionics as а pseudoscientific theories? Please quote them.--ThesariusQ (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

you no longer see the footnotes? --Q Valda (talk) 08:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

You no longer see this analysis [9]? --ThesariusQ (talk) 09:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Your "analysis" (with false claims in the first words e.g. about "neutral user") means nothing when it contradicts the RSs. More precisely, it means that you are engaged in an unwarranted promotion of a pseudoscientific theory. Btw, the local administrator concluded that socionics article page falls under the regulation of pseudoscience (WP:ARBPS) — [10] --Q Valda (talk) 10:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

These links have nothing to do with psychology and the word "socionics" is mentioned in them only once. Except Mineev, who can be included in the criticism section. But his socionics is mentioned only once in the whole book. This means that this source is lightweight. Any neutral sane person will conclude this.--ThesariusQ (talk) 12:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Mentioned in them to call it Pseudoscience. There is no requirement that the sources have anything 'to do with psychology', whatever that means. Per WP:FRIND that these sources are outside the Socionics 'bubble' is a good thing and means they get more weight, not less. - MrOllie (talk) 12:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Even if they are written by students, philologists and others?--ThesariusQ (talk) 13:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Not a problem, if they are published in peer-reviewed journals. --Q Valda (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't the profile of the magazine matter? Are philologists competent in psychology?--ThesariusQ (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Socionics (with its information-processing theory that tries to predict outcomes of peoples interactions) is some kind of modern divination practice that has nearly zero level of validity and reliability. And since divination is not an accepted occupation in science, sources from other fields of knowledge are quite suitable. --Q Valda (talk) 21:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Show sources that confirm your personal opinion, please. You never provided them. It follows that such statements are a mistake or fake.--ThesariusQ (talk) 10:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Socionics is not a monolith. There are socionists that treat intertype relationships with care and avoid making predictions in any kind of detail.

The key relationship prediction is the primacy of Duality in beneficial relationships, and that is actually based in scientific research, specifically the body of evidence showing that high strengths diversity and low values diversity creates more effective teams.

Almost all notions of compatibility in Socionics stem from this well-researched proposition. Echidna1000 (talk) 01:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Sources pointing out socionics as "pseudoscientific" are declarative or speculative and not evidence-based. Also they merely list soicionics, not giving any sort of factual argument. In some articles the word socionics appear only once! how is it even relevant, when there is no argument? Some sources cited have even been reevaluated by the author himself, and have been purposely misquoted. Using any sort of opinions and including them as factual declarations is missinformative manupulation, specially when quotes are used out of context, and is undermining the theoretical approach under an unfair categorization. Socionics needs not to be considered as scientific, however declaring it to be pseudoscientific is even worse, since it's a lie, a speculation, appealing to an opinion. No opinions should be used as factual representations of reality. Furthermore using a speculative source to "support" the declaration, just because the source is published is a logical fallacy falling under "ad verecundiam" or appeal to authorithy. Knowledge should not be used under a fascist policy, and should not follow one or anothers view just because, without evidence words are but words, opinions are opinions, and should be share as opinions, otherwise we are purposely disrupting knowledge... such as it is happening here.

Any sort of criticism to a theory should go under the criticism section. The current status of the article is not only lacking neutrality, violating wikipedia's policy, but it is plain missinformative and deceitful, following some editor's whim. People don't deserve being missinformed under the view of a group, they need the facts as they are, and the article is countering this freedom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psyhence Phi (talk • contribs) 16:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Some context - I am a British Psychological Society member and business psychologist who actually uses Socionics in my role to coach and develop senior people in large banks. THE KEY ISSUE here is a failure to distinguish between practises and interpretations of Socionics that are pseudoscientific and those which are not. The sources listed seem to come almost exclusively from the East, where pseudoscientific practices, like Visual Identification, are commonplace. It is a different story in the UK and the USA, where Socionics is used much like the Myers Briggs Type Indicator, in order to help people with their development. Socionics provides useful insight by helping a person to identify the categories their strengths and weaker points fit into. It allows one to pick out where a person's natural focus is and what needs greater focus for a balanced set of competencies.

People here are saying that the facet of Intertype Relations make Socionics like "divination", but this is untrue. There is a scientific basis to duality available in the literature. Teams and relationships work better where people are 1. United in their values, and 2. Diverse in their strengths and capabilities. It's all there on Google Scholar and that is exactly what Duality is about: Same Values, Opposite Strengths.

THAT IS WHY I think we need a much more nuanced article. Have a section on pseudoscientific practises in Socionics, but don't start your article by declaring Socionics to be a pseudoscience as if all its practises and interpretations are a monolith. You wouldn't start a Wikipedia on Islam with the interpretation used by ISIL, because that would be a gross, unfair generalisation that leaves out the majority of peaceful Muslims in our world. Please hold a similar standard for Socionics and all other complex multi-faceted disciplines, ideas and beliefs. Echidna1000 (talk) 11:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Echidna1000, The Myers Briggs Type Indicator is pseudoscience as well. The concept that 'personality types' exist at all is highly controversial, let alone the idea any particular type classification has any predictive power. Socionics is a house built on a foundation of pseudoscience. We don't have a more nuanced article because the sources (and the science) don't support that. MrOllie (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I should add that the basis of 'personality types' in Socionics is a lot more robust than the MBTI. It's not based on asserting bimodal variation in four dichotomies. It's the logical conclusion of there being distinct types of information, and accepting that different people process different kinds of information differently. You can use Socionics without asserting any kind of bimodal variation at all, because it doesn't make the same claim as MBTI. It only looks like it's the same claim because there are 16 types. It's not controversial to say that people have hierarchies of motivations, values, strengths, and weaker points. Socionics sets out how based on the way that information (not people) can be categorised reliably, that these various hierarchies exist in finite combinations in people, and the profiles exist to describe the different ways in which these combinations may manifest in a person. It is controversial to say that a person can only be either a social 'Extrovert' or a reflective 'Introvert', which is what MBTI does, but the way Socionics actually works, it's not controversial to say that there are types of information metabolism.

The only predictive claim made by Socionics is around inter-type relations, and this is actually grounded in the science. If you look at the research on diversity in successful teams, you will find that high strengths diversity is desirable because that complements and high values diversity is not desirable because that was found in studies to clash. THAT is duality. Echidna1000 (talk) 02:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

MrOllie Sure, my point is that when you look at the MBTI Wikipedia page, it doesn't start by saying "MBTI is a pseudoscientific...." It starts by saying that it is a self-report tool for determining personality type. Later, it points out that the MBTI has been "criticized as pseudoscientific". Why can't we do the same for the Socionics page? The mention that there is criticism is fine, absolutely include that, but to simply start with "Socionics is a pseudoscientific..." is unfair treatment when compared to similar theories and tools. It is also taking a clear intellectual position rather than providing all available information with opinions for the reader to compare and form their own view. Wikipedia is meant to inform, not instruct. As I have said before, there are practices of Socionics that do not rest on unproven synthetic claims about our world and are just frameworks for making sense of what we can already see in an meaningful way. There are overreaching uses of Socionics and there are modest but still valuable uses of Socionics. It's misinformation to treat Socionics as a monolith like that. Maybe we can have a discussion about this in person sometime, as this is a very obscure, niche field and it's easy to not know of the diversity of opinions within that niche. I am one of the more outspoken western voices and take a very different approach to the range of differing approaches in the east. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Echidna1000 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

It seems like MBTI article should also start with "MBTI is a pseudoscientific[1][2][3]...[10]" so if somebody is ready to move critic reviews to the top of that article and then fend off unwarranted attacks from scammers such as MrOllie who earns through pseudoscience and doesn't want this pseudoscientific status to be mentioned at the top of the page, as his bank clients are so busy they won't bother reading the rest of the article -- it could be very useful, including for his clients QuantumBorg (talk) 06:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

It does? Of the three paragraphs in the lead section of the MBTI article, two of them are about how it is pseudoscience. Contrary to your unsupported accusations, I have no problem with that at all. - MrOllie (talk) 14:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't in the same way. The Socionics article right at the beginning says "Socionics is a pseudoscientific theory". The MBTI waits until the third paragraph to say "Though the MBTI resembles some psychological theories, it has been criticized as pseudoscience and is not widely endorsed by academic researchers in the psychology field."

That's a MUCH fairer way of introducing the theory to a reader. That accounts for the criticisms that have been made without biasing the reader and undermining the reputation of Wikipedia as an authoritative source of information. Echidna1000 (talk) 02:21, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Welcome back! Perhaps you didn't notice that the comment you responded to is more than a year old. It is long since time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. MrOllie (talk) 02:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources and definition of socionics.

Hi @Crossroads, I'm a little surprised. In the clarification to revert my edit, you wrote: "Revert possible Gish gallop of sources - many do not verify the claim or are from the post-Soviet states that Socionics is influential is in and may not be independent - please make the case on the talk page ". What specific sources confuse you? These are 20 tertiary and secondary independent and reliable sources. These are peer-reviewed scientific reference books, textbooks and articles from various countries of Eastern and Western Europe. I even quoted from them. But pay attention - they all say almost the same thing when they give a definition of socionics. Thus, they reflect the established scientific consensus among independent researchers from different countries in relation to socionics. And if you remove any dubious source, then practically nothing will change. Or are they not enough? Does Wiki have a rule about segregation of authoritative sources of any countries?)) Jim MacKenna (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Socionics has a problem in which many sources come from a walled garden of pseudoscientists. We cannot allow these sorts of sources to be used to undercut the independent sources we do have, per WP:FRIND. MrOllie (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I chose only independent sources. First of all, these are encyclopedias and textbooks on psychology, sociology and other related sciences. They are definitely not "from a walled garden of pseudoscientists" :) They were written by independent respected professors and doctors of sciences from various countries. I will quote my text again: "A number of reference books and textbooks on psychology and social sciences, as well as a number of researchers, define socionics as a science that studies and models the information structure of the psyche, the information interaction of a person with the world and offers an information theory of relations between people. ." But it seems that no one even wants to consider the sources cited, they are trying to remove them immediately, and all attention and priority is given to extremely dubious sources from one country. The authors of these sources do not even have a profile education in the field of psychology or sociology, which include socionics. Moreover, half of these sources were written by authors even without a degree. And this is called reliable sources? :) Jim MacKenna (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

You can find discussion of these sources from the last time they were posted, in Talk:Socionics/Archive 5. - MrOllie (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the recommendation, but I have not found clear arguments anywhere why very unreliable sources are used to determine socionics. Jim MacKenna (talk) 21:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

References

Socionics is "Pseudoscientific", but not MBTI?

Tells much about the motivation of whoever made that addition, and the one(s) that allow it to be stated still in this article. That negative out of the blue connotation immediately predisposes someone reading this article to dismiss Socionics as irrelevant. And then in the criticism section, where there is supposed to be evidence that it is "pseudoscientific", there are some unrelated commentaries instead. Laughable. Ask for my money again wikipedia. 85.51.16.85 (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

There is a whole paragraph about how it is pseudoscience in the lead of the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator article. MrOllie (talk) 23:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome to edit this or any other article as you see fit. In fact, if you're acting in good faith, it's encouraged. Especially on an article that needs a lot of work. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 23:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Got my IP range banned for that commentary. Says even more about the motivations of certain people.

True, there is a whole paragraph for stating MBTi is pseudoscientific. However, it is different to how it is stated in this article. In this article, in the introductory phrase, it is CLAIMED that socionics is pseudoscientific. IS there any evidence that it is pseudoscientific? In the MBTI article, it is not stated in the introductory phrase, and it is stated in the following manner "it has been criticized as pseudoscientific". There is difference to directly STATING (which is actually a CLAIM) that it "is" pseudoscientific, to saying "it has been criticized..". What is the evidence that it is pseudoscientific? 88.8.118.143 (talk) 23:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

The evidence is in the sources cited, as with all Wikipedia articles. There are 10 citations for that statement in Socionics. But remember that not all articles are equal in terms of how much attention is given to them, and the Meyer-Briggs article is likely much more visible. This means there are likely more editors looking into the nuance of what is in the sources and trying to maintain neutrality and follow the sources. I'm sure the pseudoscience statement in the MBTI lead was hotly debated numerous times, eventually settling on the qualifying statement that's there now. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

These 10 sources are extremely doubtful. All of them are from only one country - Russia, although socionics is widespread in many countries of Europe, Asia, and other continents. In these sources, socionics is mentioned only once and without explanation. Moreover, the authors of these sources are neither psychologists nor sociologists, and some do not even have degrees. These are rubbish sources, and it is not clear why based on these dubious sources one of the most important rules of Wikipedia is violated - the neutral point of view of WP:NPOV. Jim MacKenna (talk) 11:51, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

socionics is widespread in many countries of Europe, Asia, and other continents That's just not true. Socionics is niche, because it is fringe. In fact, all personality typing theories (Socionics and MBTI are only two examples) are considered to be pseudoscience by mainstream science. As has been thoroughly discussed above, attempting to define only some small subset of authors as 'experts' (which ends up exactly matching those who support Socionics) can not and will not be used as a way to exclude these sources. MrOllie (talk) 12:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

"In fact, all personality typing theories (Socionics and MBTI are only two examples) are considered to be pseudoscience by mainstream science". Indeed? Then please please cite authoritative sources with citations for such a strong and peremptory statement. Or is this your personal opinion? Jim MacKenna (talk) 13:04, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

If you are asking seriously and not just trying to score rhetorical points, Benjamin Hardy's Book, 'Personality Isn't Permanent' is a good introduction to this topic and contains numerous citations. MrOllie (talk) 13:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

No, this is not rhetoric. I want to understand this issue. In Benjamin Hardy's Book, 'Personality Isn't Permanent', I saw the announcement "Why personality tests such as Myers-Briggs and Enneagram are not only psychologically destructive but are no more scientific than horoscopes". This is the opinion of only one author in his popular book. Fine, but this does not apply in any way to the psychophysiological types of informational metabolism in socionics. The article directly states that psychological traits change over time, but this does not apply to the socionic type. Where are the scientific publications that speak directly about the pseudo-scientific nature of personality typology? I search https://scholar.google.com/ for "typology personality pseudosciense" and immediately see the new dissertation "The Association between the Emotional Intelligence and Personality Types of School Principals Earle, Wynn Elliott, Jr. Union University ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2021. 28775077 [11] But I didn’t see any scientific articles claiming pseudoscientific typology. It turns out that the opinion of one author cannot be passed off as the opinion of all modern science. The thing is that the classification and typology of phenomena or objects of study are part of the methodology of any science. This is common knowledge. Jim MacKenna (talk) 14:15, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

As I just said, Hardy cites his sources, you can find lots of stuff starting there. MrOllie (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Hardy's statements and conclusions do not refer to socionic types of informational metabolism. But having this 2021 dissertation directly refutes the statement "In fact, all personality typing theories (Socionics and MBTI are only two examples) are considered to be pseudoscience by mainstream science." Or will you argue that this and other dissertations are pseudoscientific? )) Jim MacKenna (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Rhetorical points it is, then. MrOllie (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

These are not rhetorical points, but serious questions of scientific methodology. You never provided a specific quote on which the categorical and peremptory statement "In fact, all personality typing theories (Socionics and MBTI are only two examples) are considered to be pseudoscience by mainstream science." And the very first search for authoritative sources directly refutes it, because personality typology is used, for example, in the latest dissertation of 2021 "The Association between the Emotional Intelligence and Personality Types of School Principals Earle, Wynn Elliott, Jr. Union University ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2021. 28775077. In addition, such a categorical statement is extremely erroneous a priori, because any science in any branch of knowledge begins with the classification, typology and categorization of observed phenomena and objects. Jim MacKenna (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

You can read about it here: Encyclopaedia Britannica [12], Alberto Marradi. Classification, typology, taxonomy [13] [14] Jim MacKenna (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

A thesis on educational admin at an evangelical christian school is not a high quality scientific source. But it is apparent now that I am arguing with a true believer that is not really interested in facts. MrOllie (talk) 18:46, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

This dissertation is the first thing I saw on request. And I am not a believer. )) In the same way, I could quote any other work. And what facts are you talking about? You didn't present them. I am writing to you about general scientific methodology in the field of classification and typology, but I do not receive a clear answer and, most importantly, quotes from an authoritative source confirming your categorical statements. Jim MacKenna (talk) 19:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

These are examples of articles that consider a wide variety of psychological typologies.

• Resilients, overcontrollers and undercontrollers: A systematic review of the utility of a personality typology method in understanding adult mental health problems

Author links open overlay panel Laura Bohane Nick Maguire Thomas Richardson https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S027273581630294X Clinical Psychology Review

Volume 57, November 2017, Pages 75-92

Abstract

"The person-centred typological approach to personality makes the distinction between overcontrolled and undercontrolled personality types. This review systematically searched for research on the utility of these personality types in adult mental health. A total of 43 papers were included, which were divided broadly into cross-sectional studies, longitudinal studies and studies with clinical populations. within clinical subgroups and have implications for treatment".

• A developmental typology of adolescent personality

Theo A. Klimstra, William W. Hale III, Quinten A. W. Raaijmakers, Susan J. T. Branje, Wim H. J. Meeus

First published: 24 November 2009 https://doi.org/10.1002/per.744Citations: 36

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/per.744

• Relationship between Circadian Typology and Big Five Personality Domains

Lorenzo Tonetti , M.S., Marco Fabbri & Vincenzo Natale

Pages 337-347 | Received 30 Jun 2008, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07420520902750995

Personality-Based Typology of Adolescent Male Sexual Offenders: Differences in Recidivism Rates, Victim-Selection Characteristics, and Personal Victimization Histories

James R. Worling

Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment volume 13, pages 149–166 (2001) Jim MacKenna (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

This article has a long history, including 6 talk page archives, several reports at the administrator's noticeboard, as well as an Arbcom case. Sockpuppet accounts and banned editors coming back to attempt the influence the article are common. Many of the points you are bringing up have been addressed before. I'm not particularly interested in rehashing it all again. If you really think this isn't a pseudoscience (IMO it clearly is) then you'll need to start a WP:RFC or something. MrOllie (talk) 20:07, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the recommendation. Are you talking about specific sources? However, we have not yet discussed socionics in detail. We started talking about the role of classification and typology in scientific methodology. I believe that the examples I have given of modern scientific publications show that the regular use of typologies as a scientific method in modern psychology is quite obvious. Do you agree with this? Jim MacKenna (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)