Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:35, 28 May 2009

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Psychology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The J/P Issue

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

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

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

I agree, how about fix this, and create another column that has the socionics type abbreviation? I'm still not sure what the difference between Socionics types and MBTI types are due to this problem. 203.14.53.23 07:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to switch this over to standard usage. jbolden1517 19:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

This is Pseudoscience right? Why no mention?

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

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

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

Socionics is not a "widely accepted theory" in the English speaking world because it is virtually unknown. Also, the site you quote -- www.socionics.com -- is not representative of the field as it actually exists in the former Soviet Union. The author overemphasizes physiognomical similarities between representatives of socionic types and uses a visually-based typing approach that is largely criticized among Russian and Ukrainian socionists. Perceptual characteristics are the basis of socionic type, not external similarities. Such similarities often exist, but they are elusive and often misleading.

Your phrase "a person's outer appearance can predict their personality" is definitely not what socionists actually think, but, again, is an impression from the site you mentioned. Virtually all socionists, however, would agree with this statement: "states of mind and manner of self-expression are related to socionic type and hence to certain aspects of personality."

Thanks for your reply, it cleared up a lot. I also found this site http://www.socionics.us/philosophy/misperceptions.shtml that explains alot . Still, I think the article could use some work. Maybe when more people become aware of it, a better article can be written.

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

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

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

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

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

Socionics and Intertype Relations theory

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

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

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

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

Another Socionics

What about socionics as a research field on the edge between sociology and distributed artificial intelligence? Yuunli 07:31, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Some links:

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

External Links

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

• http://www.baydy.net/forum (Socionical forum, Russian)
• http://socionika.adelaida.net (English)
• http://www.socionicsdating.com (English, Russian)
• http://www.socionics.ibc.com.ua (Russian, English)
• http://www.socionics.org (Russian, some texts in English)
• http://www.socionics.us (English)
• http://ru.laser.ru (Russian)
• http://www.socionics.ru (Russian)
• http://www.the16types.info (English, forum)
• http://soc.wavatars.com (English, wiki)

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

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

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

Category: Psychology

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

I removed it because socionics is not an accepted part of the field of psychology. You would be hard pressed to find any mention of socionics in a psychology textbook or psychology journal. I just did a search on PsycINFO, the comprehensive database for scientific articles that have been published in psychology, and found zero hits. In fact, I even wonder how "notable" socionics is. I googled it and found that most of the links were to socionics websites promoting the theory, not independent sources. As a psychologist myself, I smell a strong whiff of B.S. when I look at this page. Citation of Jung is not empirical evidence. I'd like to see some, any evidence that socionics has any validity whatsoever. This is why I removed it from the psychology category. That said, I recognize that I may be utterly wrong and uninformed, and therefore I will take no further actions on this subject. The psychology category is a mish mash anyway, and socionics is probably no worse that much of what is already there. I'd still like to see the evidence, if there is any. Thanks. --Jcbutler 22:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I found one book at Amazon.com with "socionics" in the title, but it's a book on computer science, an interdisciplinary work on sociology and artificial intelligence. Now according to the Misplaced Pages article, there are some online books in Russian, so maybe... Yet one wonders why Pavlovian conditioning, Marxist psychology, etc. are all quite well known and documented, and yet socionics is so elusive. --Jcbutler 22:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

A fair criticism, I suppose. Unfortunately, almost all of the material on Socionics is in Russian, where Socionics is more well-known than in the West (although by no means universally acknowledged). I'm still not sure as to exactly what would constitute empirical evidence for your suggestion. However, I would agree that, as you mentioned, if numerous books, techniques, and concepts of dubious psychological value are included in the category on psychology, that Socionics probably deserves to be there as well. By the way, the field of socionics regarding artificial intelligence is an entirely different field which has by chance coined the same name. I don't know anything about it. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You will find much more google hits if you search for соционика (Russian word for socionics). The www.ozon.ru counts 34 different books on socionics (see this link). Certainly, all books are in Russian. Andreas Kaufmann 22:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

I believe category "Psychology" is too broad. I replaced it with category "Personality", which is a subcategory of "Psychology" and also added categories "Personality typology" and "Interpersonal relations". I hope this is fine. Andreas Kaufmann 22:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

That's probably a better fit anyway. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 22:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

the above comment was clearly added by user tcaudilllg from the16types.info forums. tcaudilllg is a resident eccentric with no knowledge of socionics whatsoever. it may be poor judgment to take his comments at face value. you have been warned. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

If being called an "eccentric" means that I have successfully challenged the perception of socionics as "labeling", then I am guilty as charged. This article does a poor job of delineating what socionics does and does not explain as regards the personality. -- tcaudilllg

Extensive Wiki Type Descriptions and Resources

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

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

What about the IE elements?

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

forums as external links

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

The reason that forums are usually avoided as links is because they don't contribute to the article itself. Their inclusion generally serves only to draw attention to their presense. If the consensus of editors is to inlude it, then included it shall be.--Chuck Sirloin 15:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

true, they don't contribute to the article itself, but, as an encyclopedia, isn't it the place of wikipedia to offer a repository of other sources of information? 165.155.200.144 16:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 16:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I understand where you are coming from, but wikipedia is not meant to be a directory of links. WP:EL is pretty clear that about that. Now, one thing that you have mentioned is an expception under the "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources" criteria. I would maybe see that except that there is no way (usually) in a forum setting to prove who is who and what their credentials are. I will be honest, I have been to the forum and it main looks like purely a discussion forum where people talk about their own opinions and viewpoints which is mainy original research isn't it? I am not dead set against forum links, but I have yet to really be convinced about the need to include them here instead of just using google. Perhaps the suggestion at WP:EL would be a good way to go: "Where editors have not reached consensus on an appropriate list of links, a link to a well chosen web directory category could be used until such consensus can be reached. The Open Directory Project is often a neutral candidate, and may be added using the {{dmoz}} template"?--Chuck Sirloin 18:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

its true that both forums (socionix and the16types are the main ones) have significant segments of the forum devoted to socialization and a number of users who primarily share in their own theoretical and highly unproven ideas. and its also true that a great deal of the data accumulated on the forum is based on personal observation and is original research and is inhabited almost entirely by amateurs. i understand your objections to linking a discussion forum completely and in large measure agree that it is inappropriate to link to it, but i still feel that the situation of socionics is highly irregular and that wittholding the links is not entirely appropriate as a result of the fact that the forum itself does function as a repository of sorts for a variety of different socionics articles and concepts.

i think that we can probably reach a compromise based on what we link to. i wasn't able to find any adequate source of information at the Open Directory Project although to tell the truth I only scanned it over and am not very familiar with the project. At some point i think the main site at the16types.info will be up and running, which offers a more traditional database of information (although frankly i think the forum itself is a more reliable repository of information). when that occurs, i don't think linking to the site itself would be objectionable. until then i propose is that a section of the article discuss the popularity and role of socionics both in russia and in the west (this is a highly relevant issue in socionics which the article here on wikipedia doesn't seem to address), and mention in the section the importance of the forums and other online activity in the sharing of knowledge of socionics, and then include the forum links as a reference of some sort. would that be acceptable? Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I think that until better sources come along that will be ok. Since we seem to be the only two discussing it, I think we have a consensus!--Chuck Sirloin 16:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a consensus breaker here, however I would advocate on the side of more inclusion rather than less for now. Although I am currently inactive(and not very fond of) the16types forums, it did have a few helpful learning tools on it. It is conceivable to me that the forums are actually the best current source of Socionics in English, unqualified(or loony) as many of the posters may be. Sentineneve 15:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Theory of personality?

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

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

Model B? T?

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

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

the16types.info forum is dead

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

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

The admin has returned, but moderator Expat is still on. He's the one who started the mess, and there is a general disagreement between the Right and Left contingents on basis of common principle. It comes down to this: if you dislike encountering aspects of reality for which you don't have a model -- if you resist change -- then the16types is your forum. If you think reality exists whether or not it has been modeled, and that one should adapt to its existence as one becomes aware of it, then socionix is your preferred choice. Tcaudilllg (talk) 20:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

This comment by user tcaudilllg (as well as several others) is essentially spreading forum politics to wikipedia. While it's certainly fair for him to disseminate his viewpoints, these kinds of comments both are unfamiliar to many people not aware of forum politics or tcaud's theories and it should be understood that they do not reflect any kind of neutral opinion. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, as it's fair for me to disseminate my opinions: i think tcaud is a complete crackpot. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That's because you do not try to understand the real meaning of my theories of reality. In any case, the socionix "experiment" appears not to be going well; the resident denizens have little concept of respect for others. Social progressives, liberals, conservatives and theoconservatives are in need of a place to discuss socionics... without such the community will continue to dwindle.... the16types has had a change of ownership, so there may yet be a new day on the horizon. I have myself set aside a place for the discussion of my own ideas at http://www.armleg.com/psychorelative . But as for a competent restoration of the spirit which was once the16types... I can make no such recommendations at this time. Tcaudilllg (talk) 08:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

New site headed by the former admin of the16types.info: Metasocion.com. The place to meet and speak with competant personality theorists who have a passion for understanding people at the social level. Tcaudilllg (talk) 20:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

This article should be on the Misplaced Pages CD

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

MBTI correlations

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

That is not correct. While one can reference Sergei Ganin's alleged comparisons that suggest this, many other socionists do not agree with this assessment, such as Dmitri Lytov, whose material could be referenced to refute this hypothesis. If you wish to discuss this and attribute the hypothesis to SG, feel free. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That IS correct. The consensus has evolved: extroverted types are the same between MBTI and socionics; introverted types are J/P flipped between the two systems. (they are both derivatives of Jung's system, which makes their systematic equivalency inexorable). Niffweed... doesn't know what he's defending. I agree, the difference should be noted.

Lytov's material does not implicitly dismiss the phemenological correlation between the two systems. He only argues that more work should be done before making a definitive conclusion. Since these statements, new information has come to light which makes the official MBTI stance known; there is no more reason to argue about it. Let the West learn about that which distinguishes Augusta's philosophy from MBTT, and of the real underpinnings of type. Tcaudilllg (talk) 08:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no "official" MBTI stance. If you wish to produce attributable source (Ganin or otherwise) as a basis to present the hypothesized relationship, then feel free to do so. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh really? Why not read the MBTI article on here, BEFORE shooting your mouth off? Tcaudilllg (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Several issues

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

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

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

Neutrality of article

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

Can you be more specific? What criticisms are you referring to? And how are the type descriptions "too personal"? They are supposed to be about people... FYI updated versions exist on Wikisocion. Thehotelambush (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

A more scientific language should be used. If the words used have strong connotations, or are vague, then it is more difficult to classify objectively. If this is a science, it should be described as one, it should not sound like a horoscope.83.250.225.166 (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Eh, the brain has workings and not all people's brains work the same way. People have type. Type shapes how they cope. There are many dispositions in the brain to which there are no channels available for by which to institute change. DNA tends to rule the roost, so those dispositions manifest as traits. Types are traits of confidence. Seperating a person from their competencies is impossible in our culture of self-reliance. You look at Rod Blagovich, he's going to go to prison because he has confidence that there are times when you've got to let go of your convictions, and a lot of unconfidence in staying pure to principle. And his coming legal defeat is going to reinforce that self-same notion in his head: that sometimes you've gotta let go of your principles, and knowing when to let go of them is essential for getting by. Although, maybe he will learn to acknowledge that he can't expect the same of others, like he did when he tried to force his peers to lobby for Obama's seat. In any case, that confidence in the need to let go of conviction comes from somewhere, and whatever happens to try to shape that confidence must first pass the integrity rules of his ego like anybody else. The conscience must itself be shaped on basis of the confidence, such that ignoring the confidence = ignoring the conscience. He's insane, after a fashion, but insane by virtue of his brain, because the circuitry of the same shapes his conscience. So we say "he's a corrupt type". Is it effective to disconnect a person from their nature? Ethics (and those ISFPs/ESIs types who promote it) seems to have concluded "no". Tcaudilllg (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Basically no scientific criticisms of socionics exist in English due to the relative obscurity of the topic. No doubt criticisms similar to that of the MBTI's reception would exist, but if there are any, they're in russian circles and I don't know about and can't contribute information on them. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of socionics: http://www.metasocion.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=233 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcaudilllg (talk • contribs) 02:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sufficient empirical substantiation?

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

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

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

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

Esoteric links to Socionics

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

What? Substantiate that claim. Tcaudilllg (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Dispute between user tcaudilllg and user8080

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

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

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

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

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

I would take issue with you removing any of the Jung stuff. This isn't Wikisocion and you're not going to have your way unchallenged.

1. 2 DeLong has ONE claim for mention here and that is his insider status. That in itself is only relevant. The man is not an expert on socionics by any stretch of the word, having no formal qualifications as such. Anything which is not a restatement of published work is original research on DeLong's part.

I'm going to reinsert the Model T/B bit. As I understand it you can't back up the claim that only an extreme fringe use VI, because in that case you would be including Gulenko, who created the technique, in that group and you have no position from which to say that of Gulenko. Tcaudilllg (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Well first off that isn't a revert, it was a change. I don't have any problem with the current version, I had a problems with redefining the terms. If we want to just call them "4 letter" and use the "3 letter" term through out the article that's fine. Socionicss free to develop its own abbreviations on wikipedia it is not free to redefine Myers-Briggs. That an INFP means a Ni dominant no Fi pulls in sources outside socionics in which case the overwhelming number of sources says the opposite of what the article was asserting. Even worse was when it was calling them "Myers-Briggs names". I would want to add a column to the table though with Myers Briggs names at least once for clarity.

As for SEI I think you are simply incorrect. See for example IEI which I believe is correct. jbolden1517 12:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Notice the moment you tried to use the standard definitions an anonymous editor started changing the table. There is no way to use these terms this way without being ultra explicit about the connection. jbolden1517 14:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I just thought of a great idea

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

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

tattwas link

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

You should write the section then worry about the content. But right now what you have is a section consisting of a single link which is a violation of the manual of style, for good reason. I'll wait for a day or so for you to create content, but then it needs to be there if you want a dedicated section and not just a "see also". Also in looking of the tattwas link I have serious questions about the host article not being original research. I don't see any support of the socionics connection you are proposing in sources. The tattwas article as it stands is likely to get AFDed. jbolden1517 01:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Cite the Russian sources in the Tattwas article. No one is yet objecting to sources, I'm saying the Tattwas article doesn't have sources and thus this article has a problem asserting what you are claiming. And you probably shouldn't assume what other editor's opinions are. For information, I consider socionics to be a classification scheme combined with a relationship theory. I don't consider it scientific nor spiritual but rather more of a systemization of Jung. jbolden1517 18:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Excellent start. If I may recommend, since this is going to be contentious hit each point: WP:CITE and WP:CITET may be helpful for instructions and I'll be glad to help. jbolden1517 19:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

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

neutrality issue tag

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

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

You really need to get the tattwas article cited up first. You are quite likely just going to get reverted with no RSes for the whole theory you are outlining. Right now you have the evidence in the tattwas article which could be deleted for no RSes and then no RSes here. I would stop adding stuff and start citing in Tattwas jbolden1517 03:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Wikisocion not a reliable source

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

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

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

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

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

I'd like the cites replaced not just removed. Virtually this whole article is missing citations as is. Where they exist please don't make it worse. jbolden1517 04:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I had no intention of removing the cites outright. Tcaudilllg (talk) 21:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Reference list

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

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

Removing: Esoteric links to Socionics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes. I'm reverting everything until Rmcnew can provide a source that sufficiently shows that socionics has "strong verifiable ties to hindu philosophy, tattwas, the western zodiac, cosmology, mysticism, and the occult." Powpowpowpowpow (talk) 00:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Esoteric Links reverted back on account of fraudulent deceitful argumentation

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

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

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

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

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class psychology articles
• Unknown-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles
• C-Class sociology articles
• Unknown-importance sociology articles