Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:59, 1 July 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. Skepticism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism ??? 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)

What is "standard usage?" There is no consensus among socionists as to the relationship between MBTI and socionics types. The different notations are recorded to emphasize that MBTI and socionics do not mean the same thing. I think they are their inclusion is confusing, and would support getting rid of them. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 06:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

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 claiming that the chakras can be used to explain diseases that each type is prone too. It is not at all substantitive. The four people who carried out the studies in the article are all from St. Petersburg, as is Filatova. The statement "hindu philosophical thinking, chakras, and cosmological connections have been widely discussed topics among socionics authors" is unqualified - okay, so chakras have been discussed in two articles, but what about the other things? And where's the proof that these things are widely talked about?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

132 Augusta is an RS on socionics. Please get a link to an article or a source by her. That resolves the what to include and if we can include immediately. jbolden1517 03:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

As the wikisocion article (which is not valid source material anyway) on Augusta states, Augusta was not involved in mysticism until later in her life, nearing her death. Hence the body of works that Augusta produced on socionics (as far as i know) had no relationship to mysticism. Unless mcnew can provide something that definitively states otherwise, I think that the suggestion that Augusta's work on socionics had any relationship to mysticism, alchemy, or the zodiac, is spurious and false. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 06:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

as rudie boy stated earlier; i did not see this. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 06:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

You have no basis for that claim. The article is entirely factual in its discussion of Augusta's mysticism (which consists of exactly one sentence). The article clearly implies that Augusta's mystical inclinations were confined to the end of her life, and a rational reader would presumably take this to mean that other socionists' criticism rested on the fact that they believed Augusta's mystical ideas unscientific. There is no basis whatsoever for your accusal of DeLong's withholding of the truth; your interpretation is completely unsupported by the words on the page. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 04:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Rmcnew, you are accusing someone of intellectual dishonesty, which without any evidence whatsoever is completely unacceptable. If there is evidence that Aushra Augusta was involved in mysticism before the proposition of Socionics theory and that this may have played a part, then provide this evidence. I should note there is an important difference between the claim that Augusta proposed Socionics after she died in 2005 and the claim that she proposed it before then.

The sentence "While socionics itself is typically secular, founder Ausura Augusta herself was verifiable involved with mysticism" is misleading even if true - it gives the impression that 'mysticism' played a role in the creation of Socionics. The term 'mysticism' is also such a vague word that Aushra becoming involved with mysticism could simply mean as something as commonplace as becoming a Christian...and...where would the evidence be that mysticism played a part in the creation of Socionics theory? RudieBoy (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Note also that the IP address for User:69.12.233.200 is located in Chico, CA, which as a matter of public knowledge is the residence of user rmcnew. It therefore seems extremely probable that posting as an anon is merely as a sock to further garner support for his point. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 02:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

All these different 'mystical' notions like esotericism, chakras, hindu philosophy, the western zodiac, tattwas, cosmology, and the occult should not be used as a single proof that socionics has origins in 'mysticism'. Each one of these notions should be described on their own merits - I get the impression that these words are being thrown around and being used in a vague sense to make a case. A million tenuous claims are not better than a single strongly made case. I see that some people in St. Petersburg have tried to used the chakras in conjuction with socionics as a means of understanding health problems or somesuch - this is a single report which does not attempt to make any justification for any connections made through testable means. It certainly does not say that socionics has its origins in 'mysticism'. The chakras had simply nothing to do with how the socionics types were derived. If a study on some website showed that the socionics types could each be correlated with a species of dinosaur without any actual proof, what would that mean do you think? --Rmcnew (talk) 21:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)RudieBoy (talk) 19:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

As has already been stated, you are merely repeating your argument and offering no substantiation whatsoever. These sources offer tentative hypotheses for relationships between socionics and various mystical ideas. They do not demonstrate "strong verifiable ties," and they contain no reference to the suggestion that socionics was developed by Augusta with alchemy, hindu mythology, astrology, or anything similar in mind. Nor, incidentally, is there any reference to mysticism in the writings of Augusta as transcribed on socionics.us. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 04:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Rmcnew I think it is somewhat redundant for "Hindu philosophy" and "chakras" to both be mentioned when just "chakras" would have done. Now, Socionics theory was proposed after examining successful and unsuccessful relationships over a number of years, and so Socionics 'theory' has at least some degree of foundation. Considering that this is the nature of Socionics, and considering that Socionics is fundamentally a theory about human relationships, it is not justifiable to make reference a handful of resources which claim that Socionics has "esoteric" ties while providing no quantitative data. The articles are just coffee-table journalism - and in the case of the Carlos Castaneda article, probably fraudulent. I haven't been able to pass judgement on the western zodiac article, as you still haven't referenced the name of the journal in which the article can be found or provided a link to a website where it can be located. Apart from those references not being at all satisfactory, you have not even attempted to justify how tattwas, cosmology, mysticism, and the occult have "verifiable ties" to Socionics - if there is a degree of overlap with other vague terms, this should be made clear. RudieBoy (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In this article (http://socionics.org/theory/Default.aspx?load=lytov_mistakes.html) by Dmitriy Lytov (За соционику без ошибок, translation: For the Socionics without errors), Lytov says: "I think sooner or later, we are forced to answer the question of how socionic types correlated with central nervous system." - which implies that the Socionics is generally considered to be associated with the central nervous system, but that at this stage (or at least at the time of the article in 2001), Socionics remains a theory about information processing, which does not go into how. I think this is significant because it shows that although the exact correlation between the types and aspects of the central nervous system have not yet been established, the Socionics elements have always been considered to be processes carried out by the central nervous system. (It should be noted here that most of the chakras have nothing to do with the central nervous system, and they certainly do not use the term "central nervous system", which is nowadays understood to be something far more complex than simply a "third eye".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Augusta's research into the central nervous system, and the esoteric belief of chakras

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Esoteric Links reverted back on account of fraudulent deceitful argumentation

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

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

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

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

j/p socionics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"typically secular"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As for the the16types.info article http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/general-discussion-model/25677-i-want-declare-war.html I would say that this is a testament to built up expectations over time only to find out that the actual culture behind socionics in the east did not transfer over with the typology. And I am safe to say that apparently I am one of the people who would rather know the truth than some fabrication or expectation that is not going to pan out with socionics over time. The culture in the east in regards to socionics is much different than in the west, where they do talk about Hindu philosophy, Chakras, and things of an esoteric type nature. In the west, this culture simply did not flow along with the internet, as socionics has been up to this point purely an internet phenomenon. And unfortunately I don't think that socionics would have caught on at all in the west had these followed from the beginning taking these things to be the case. --Rmcnew (talk) 19:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Socionics - verifiable ties to the periodic table

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A reminder

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

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

Esoteric Links Article reverted again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Ausura Augusta's first book, "the dual nature of man" Ausura Augusta links the socionic functions to the central nervous system, through the usage of the socionic functions. According to Dmitri Lytov, the connection to and from socionics functions to the cranial atmosphere has not been fully connected, though this was hypothesized by Augusta in her book. Socionists to this day continue to find a basic link from the central nervous system to socionic functions through various esoteric means such as chakras, and scientific research into the human brain. Non-socionic authors, such as John Davidson in his book "The Web of Life: Life Force" have done similar work in linking the tattwas to the central nervous system, and also with chakras. In consideration to Ausura Augusta's view Rick Dulong is quoted as saying "Augusta was the kind of person who broadcasted her insights far and wide, and I think she would have run around saying, "look, these ancient texts are saying the same thing I've been saying!" She was not shy at all about discussing possible connections between socionics and chakras, though her ideas were purely speculative." Chakras and tattwas are the basis behind original socionics theory.

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

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

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

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

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

Attention: Rmcnew

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

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

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

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

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

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

Socionics and Mysticism article

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

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

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

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

Type chart and MBTI correlatives

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

You are correct. jbolden1517 04:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

RFC

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

• I believe the MBTI names should match the socionics name (ISFJ = ISFj)

• I believe the MBTI names should be the opposite of the socionics name for introverts and match for extraverts (ISFj=ISFP)

1. jbolden1517 04:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Mac OS X 00:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Tcaudilllg (talk) 03:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• I believe that MBTI types and functions do not correspond to socionics types and functions, and therefore support the removal of the MBTI names.

1. Powpowpowpowpowpow (talk) 03:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
2. 70.162.119.140 (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 01:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that the non-MBTI correlation side should have to present a credible source to sustain their objection. Actually I'm thinking of asking an independent arbitrator to step in, with respect to ALL of this. Tcaudilllg (talk) 03:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BTW, you are not typeless. You're merely agnostic as to what your form really is.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Socionics article renamed Socionics(typology)

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

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

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

Taking the Fight to MBTI

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

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

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

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

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

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

The rational skeptics are currently investigating socionics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This passage:

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

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

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

My opinion on why the Socionics article deletion would potentially be a good thing taking the circumstances

First off I should probably state who I am. I am officially recognized in Russia and the United States as a practicing socionists. I studied Religion, Theology, Metaphysics, Biblical Languages, at a University in Texas for 4 years, and the German language at a University in Northern California for 3 years, where I had the opportunity to exchange to Tuebingen University in Tuebingen, Germany to study Theology, and improve my Greek. I have studied socionics since 2003 and was the owner of the largest english speaking socionics forum the16types.info since 2005 (bought from Jimmy Caretti) until I sold it in late 2008. Since that time I formed the forum metasocion.com in order to present socionics in its natural form, as I found the "the the16types.info" crowd to be both extremely ignorant and prejudiced against presenting socionics the way that the founders had originally presented it. You can see some of my socionic credentials below:

http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Reuben_McNew http://www.typelab.ru/en/1.begin/index.html http://www.socioniki.info/index.php/2008-11-05-20-39-51

It is my personal opinion that all socionics articles should be deleted until it is agreed by everyone that it is a good idea to give a neutral presentation of the origin of socionics that discusses its esoteric development and gives mention to the fact that esoteric interpretations of chakras, tattwas, and psychic energy and mysticism in general were the main basis that the founders of socionics based their theory upon, and that from this socionics was formulated and later "framed to appear to be something like Jung or MBTI" and that "mystical interpretations of socionics type theory have descended directly from the founders and exist to this day" and that "there is a split between those of the opinion that socionics is something empirical and that socionics is something mystical." The multitude of sources that have been presented have already shown this. However, taking that there are people who would rather take unneutral views of socionics and present socionics in a way contrary to its origin I would be in favor of deleteing all socionics articles. I think that those who are opposed to an esoteric presentation of socionics should either come to terms that it would be correct to allow some information in some form to neutrally portray socionics esoteric background or to be content with the deletion of the whole of all of the information. --Rmcnew (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge it is...

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

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

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

1. .. Socionics and the secret of the magic: the interpretation of the riddles Of Kastanedy.
2. .. - Correspondence of socionics functions to the elements of the western tradition.
3. http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Aushra_Augusta#Reminiscenses
4. http://my.mail.ru/community/socionic/6A524BFFBBE68028.html
5. http://club.trios.e-gloryon.com/index.html?page=6507071433
6. .. Socionics and the secret of the magic: the interpretation of the riddles Of Kastanedy.
7. http://www.socionics.ru/chakry.htm
8. http://www.socionik.ru/tips/18.htm
9. .. Socionics and the secret of the magic: the interpretation of the riddles Of Kastanedy.
10. .. - Correspondence of socionics functions to the elements of the western tradition.
11. http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Aushra_Augusta#Reminiscenses
12. http://my.mail.ru/community/socionic/6A524BFFBBE68028.html
13. http://club.trios.e-gloryon.com/index.html?page=6507071433
14. .. Socionics and the secret of the magic: the interpretation of the riddles Of Kastanedy.
15. http://www.socionics.ru/chakry.htm
16. http://www.socionik.ru/tips/18.htm
17. http://socionics.org/theory/Default.aspx?load=lytov_mistakes.html
18. http://www.johndavidson.org/WebofLifeReviews.html
19. http://socionist.blogspot.com/2009/03/development-of-english-language.html

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