Talk:Socionics/Sources

This page is to organize and discuss sources used in Socionics. Sources used in the article are listed, section by section, and there are areas for discussion in each section.

Lead

 * Paragraph 1
 * no sources


 * Paragraph 2:
 * - "SOCIONICS: Personality Types and Relationships"
 * - spock.com
 * Sedikh R. Informational psychoanalysis. Socionics as a metapsychology

Socionics was developed in the 1970s and '80s mainly by the Lithuanian researcher Aušra Augustinavičiūtė, a financier and teacher of political economics. The name socionics is derived from the word "society", since Augustinavičiūtė believed that each personality type has a distinct purpose in society, which can be described and explained by socionics.


 * Paragraph 3
 * no sources

Paragraph 4:
 * - DeLong R., Socionics as a Potential Scientific Theory

Socionics has thus far been developed through introspection, observation, and personal inquiry. Although descriptive of a wide range of human behavior and interaction, socionics still has no sufficient scientific experimental substantiation.

Discussion (Lead)
no reason to source spock's wikipedia'd content. the other sources are ok; some of augusta's own material might be added. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Jung's psychological types

 * Paragraph 1
 * Jung, C.G., Psychological Types (The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol.6), 1976 (1921)

Carl Jung describes four psychological functions that are capable of becoming conscious, but to differing degrees in specific individuals:


 * Bulleted list
 * no sources


 * Paragraph 2
 * Carroll, R. T., The Skeptic's Dictionary: Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

Each of these functions can be in extraverted [Jung used 'extra', but not 'extro'] or introverted form. If the dominant function in psychological type is extraverted - the type is extraverted; if the dominant function is introverted - the type is introverted.


 * Rest of section (6 paragraphs, 1 table, 1 more paragraph)
 * no sources

Discussion (1)
The bullets are accounted for in Psychological Types.

Why are we relying on a source that is skeptical of the MBTI and Jung for information about them? There must be more appropriate sources.

I have several books by Jung and I cannot recall any of them mentioning parameters for either the tertiary or inferior functions. I think the claim should be verified. Tcaudilllg (talk) 20:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

2. Information elements

 * No sources

Discussion (2)
These are discussed in a number of sources. Rick's site has the notes on it and is generally a good source. Tcaudilllg (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I'm not familiar with these sources. Which site is Rick's? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * http://socionics.us — Tcaudilllg (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

3. The 16 types

 * Paragraph 1
 * no sources


 * Paragraph 2
 * 
 * 

Augustinavičiūtė usually used names like sensory-logical introvert (SLI) to refer to the types. In SLI the leading function is introverted sensing and the creative function is extraverted logic. She also introduced the practice of referring to types by the name of a famous person of the type (although types of these persons are not universally agreed upon, especially about "Napoleon"). For example, she called the SLI Gabin and the SEI Dumas. Also sometimes names such as Craftsman or Mediator are used to express the social role of the type. MBTI abbreviations are also in frequent use, given the formal similarities present in the two typologies. Some prefer to distinguish socionic type names from Myers-Briggs' names by writing the last letter (J or P) in lower case (for example, ENTp, ESFj). This because the relationship between socionics and Meyers-Briggs/Keirseyan types is controversial and most socionists deny any strict relationship between the two, so the difference in terminology helps to differentiate the two.


 * Table
 * Искусство понимать себя и окружающих. - The Art of Understanding Oneself and Others''
 * - Wikipedia article on MBTI

The following tables provide a list of types with the names most commonly used in socionics:


 * MBTI name


 * The "curator" of the MBTI article vehemently denies a link between the two. I think it best to remove all references to the MBTI and leave it to readers to puzzle the relationship for themselves. (unless you're going to deal with user:threeOfCups). Although there are rumors that "some" socionists argue that there is no relation between the two, I've yet to see a source. I have seen sources arguing that they are referring to the same phenomena (Jung's psychological types) but treat them differently. Tcaudilllg (talk) 10:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * the delong source (#7) includes a section arguing precisely this; that socionics and MBTI are distinct and only minimally related. the lytov source (#8) holds a similar conclusion, comparing socionics types instead to keirsey types and providing an anecdotal study in which a number of socionists were asked to evaluate keirsey profiles in socionics terms; lytov's (highly anecdotal) findings suggest some similarity but also some significant differences between the typologies.  as i have harped on about incessantly on this point, my own opinion is that the available sources differ on the hypothesized relationships to MBTI, and deserve a thorough and neutral treatment, rather than the inclusion of any MBTI or other names, which would endorse one particular viewpoint, which is not necessarily widely held. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If they were removed, I wouldn't object.... I already removed them once and they were replaced along with a bunch of other edits. Tcaudilllg (talk) 16:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion (3)
the wikipedia article on MBTI obviously does not belong here as a reference.

the one in russian appears to be a broken link, but i've seen it referenced before, so i assume its a real reference. i don't know what it says, though.

i believe that the lytov and delong articles qualify as reasonable sources, given the subject matter. it is not as though these articles couldn't have been presented as russian sources, it is more that authors like lytov and delong used the internet as a means to communicate information about socionics, in the absence of things like english-speaking journals on the subject. as far as i know socionics articles are not particularly subject to the same standards as articles for scientific journals; appropriately so, as socionics is not exctly a real science. the complaints about sources of this kind are that they produce a link farm of unverifiable sources; the truth is that many of the existing articles on the topic have equally questionable backgrounds. if this makes socionics a non-notable fringe theory, so be it (although this was not generally the consensus of the recent AfD, in my opinion), but i see little reason why these sources are less reputable merely because they're in english or are hosted on the internet. in particular, i think that this article needs a bit of lenience on the topic of finding highly accredited sources in order to give an accurate picture of what socionics is. this does not mean that i think any random forum post should be acceptable as an attribution; however, articles of the type here by delong and lytov seem acceptable to me. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that we don't use our own article as a reference, but it should rather be a wiki-link. Regarding the Russian one, have we got a Russian speaker/translator in the discussion? We can always go to WP:RFT if needed. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * online translations are sufficient for most of the socionics community's purposes. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 01:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We really do need a translator. Rick used to do it but... he's got other interests. Lytov and Tangemann are both occupied with other issues. Tcaudilllg (talk) 06:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you put together a list of links to source material we'd like translated? -GTBacchus(talk) 15:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ideally, Augusta's books. The chief difficulty with translation is getting hold of the materials: there are some articles on socioniko but I think many of the most informative articles are only in journals still. The journals are only available from the Ukrainian government. (which is not easy to interact with, let me tell you!).


 * One of the most important articles introduced the Reinin dichotomies. The Reinin dichotomies are generally regarded as the merging point of socionics with applied mathematics, and although controversial, are one of the most talked about subjects. Some efforts were made to translate it a year ago, but both ability and interest were lacking.


 * Olga Tangemann has been posting translations of her articles to Rmcnew's site (metasocion.com ) but that I know of she's not published in any English-language journals as yet. Tcaudilllg (talk) 05:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * reinin's book "socionics: typology, small groups" has been fully and professionally translated. it could serve as a source material for reinin dichotomies. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 17:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Is it intelligible? By which I mean, does it clearly explain that socionics "aristocracy" is not social aristocracy? Tcaudilllg (talk) 07:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * no; it's absolute nonsense and i can't read it. but is it classical socionics?  probably. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 07:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

4. Model A
Аугустинавичюте Аушра, ''Теория функций. Функционика. = Function theory. Functionics.''
 * Paragraph 1

Aušra Augustinavičiūtė developed a model of personality called Model A, which includes eight functional positions. Every human has every function, and can perceive and process any available information aspect by them; however, depending on where the metabolizing function for an aspect is located in a type's functional ordering, the actual quality of the produced information and the means of its use may vary. The following diagram is an example of the positions of the functions in Model A (numbers of functions are in Viktor Gulenko's notation). The numbering of the functions is semi-arbitrary, and is intended to represent on the one hand the smooth flow of information from function 1 to 4 (the mental track), and the mirroring of that flow by the other four. (the so-called "vital" track) For example, the ILE type has the following version of Model A:

4.1. Nature of functional positions

 * no sources

Discussion (4.1)
These are mentioned in Functionics. Tcaudilllg (talk) 21:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

4.2. Blocks of the psyche

 * no sources

Discussion (4.2)
Also in Functionics, among countless others. Tcaudilllg (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

4.3. The 16 types in Model A

 * no sources

5. Intertype relations

 * no sources

Discussion (5)

 * I believe Meged is the specialist on these. Tcaudilllg (talk) 21:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

6.1. Clubs

 * - Wikisocion: Clubs

Clubs are groups that reflect spheres of activity. There are 4 clubs, each with 4 types:

Discussion (6.1)
Wikisocion isn't a very good source. There are Russian sources that have been translated... (they are available at Wikisocion). My argument is, why give Wikisocion more weight than say, Socionics Workshop? Tcaudilllg (talk) 21:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree that wikisocion should not be used as a source. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 20:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Who was it who first proposed clubs? Tcaudilllg (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

6.2. Quadras

 * Wikisocion: Quadras

A quadra is a group of four types in which only identity, dual, activity, and mirror relations occur. Quadras are distinguished by offering the greatest degree of psychological comfort among all groups containing four types. The feeling of comfort and harmony produced by the quadra is due to the fact that all types in the quadra seek to give expression to the shared set of information elements in their ego and super-id blocks and to de-emphasize the information elements in their super-ego and id blocks.

6.3. Temperaments

 * Гуленко В., Менеджмент слаженной команды. Соционика для руководителей = Gulenko V. Management of well co-ordinated team. Socionics for managers.)

There is Viktor Gulenko's hypothesis of four temperaments in socionics.

Discussion (6.3)

 * Gulenko is notorious for not self-validating his hypotheses. I think we should check this one out.


 * However, the erotic attitude work is well worth mentioning. Tcaudilllg (talk) 21:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

7. Other models

 * Paragraph 1
 * Boukalov, A.V. (2004). 16-component model of TIM and Socionics. Socionics, Mentology, and Personality Psychology, 3.
 * Boukalov, A.V. (1995). On the dimensions of the functions of information metabolism. Socionics, Mentology, and Personality Psychology, 2.

In addition to Model A, two other models are in wide use by socionists. Model B, created by Aleksandr Boukalov, is designed to reconcile the socionics standpoint with the so-called "Model J" (Jung's outlook) and uses sixteen functional components instead of eight. The model uses the same eight functions as Model A, but further differentiates them by attributing positive and negative polarities to each. Model B also refines Model A's strong/weak concept by attributing vectors of dimensionality to each function. This allows it to describe with precision why some functions are relied on more than others.


 * Paragraph 2
 * no sources

Discussion (7)
This one needs to be expanded. I've located a new source with interesting information. Tcaudilllg (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Does every paragraph need a separate source? Tcaudilllg (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

7.1. Model T

 * Paragraph 1
 * Stukas, V.A. (2008). Bases of socionics. Course of lectures. Management and Personnel: Psychology of Management, Socionics, and Sociology, 12.

In recent years, socionists have sought to identify cognitive correlates for functions. Recent advances in cognitive psychology have facilitated understanding of information processing at the cognitive level. Introversion has been correlated to high brain-blood levels; extroversion to lower levels. Viktor Talanov has proposed to identify the processing centers of the four Jungian functions—logic, ethics, intuition, and sensing—as a first step towards demonstrating the existence of the function types. (called simply "functions" in socionics).

8. Methods of type identification

 * "V.I." from Socionics.com
 * "Visual Identification of Sociotypes" from Socionics.us

Several socionists have linked type traits to regular facial expressions and constancies of gaze.

Discussion (8)
i think this sentence is misleading, though i think these sources are acceptable. the ganin article does support the claim as stated here, but the delong article discusses the more widely accepted notion that VI is useful as a component of multimethod assessment techniques and can provide details related to self-presentation as opposed to the rather imprecise notions of "regular facial expressions" and "constancies of gaze." overall, the topic is fine, but requires expansion to discuss the different existing viewpoints of VI. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

9. Cultural influence

 * no sources

Discussion (9)
Rick and Lytov have both spoken about this at length. Socioniko and socionics.us are sources enough. Tcaudilllg (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

9.1. In the West
Links to socionics.com and socioniko.net

Discussion (9.1)
there are excellent articles on the topic at both sites; they require actual links to the articles, rather than to the main page. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 21:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. They should also be formatted as references, to avoid external links in the article text. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

10. Esoteric Foundation

 * Paragraph 1
 * - Kybalion information from rosicrucian-order.com

Beliefs in esoteric understandings of psychic energy, tattwas and chakras formed the basis behind original socionics theory before its development into a cognitive sociological psychology. While socionics is currently scientifically unverified, there is potential that it may constitute a basis for a new scientific branch. It could be correctly identified as a "physics of human interaction" in relation to mathematical, dualistic, polaristic, inverse, obverse motives for actions and interaction and, therefore is a type of "mystic psychology" (for example, the kybalion ).

Discussion (10)
similarly to the sources below, bears no immediately obvious relevance on socionics or the principles by which socionics is described as operating. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Socionics does operate in mathematical, dualistic, polaristic, inverse, obverse ways, otherwise it would not even be a theory that relies on "duals and opposites". I think the only legitimate objection that can be used against describeing socionics as such as to do with the fact that this entire section "is not described in layman's terms". In other words, this section is not stated in a way readily understood unless you have already done a signifigant and certain degree of study into the area of socionics already. And "study" I mean "thoroughly studied and analized according to socionics as it fits into a 360 degree circle". It is the same thing as the western zodiac and all you have to do is line the socionics functions up to the western zodiac and simply replace each sign with the corresponding tattwa (socionic function). You get full quadras and everything. --Rmcnew (talk) 22:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with the statement "no immediately obvious relevance" in that there is no immediatelly obvious relevance for those who have no former clue that socionics is used with a 360 degree circle. --Rmcnew (talk) 22:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * i think the thorough and utter illogic of the entirety of your response speaks for itself, so i'll leave it at that. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 01:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Niffweed, this isn't helpful. If that's all you're going to say, don't say anything. We've got to work together, so can't you help us maintain a basic level of respect. I'm sure you prefer being respected by others; why not model that behavior, and be the better example? -GTBacchus(talk) 01:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * i'm afraid that i'm going to have to decline your request in this instance. i cannot say that i feel that my comment was disrespectful towards rmcnew, merely that i feel that the entirety of his argumentation is completely illogical and fails to address the subject matter at all, and that for this reason composing a substantive response to it is pointless.  i will not lie and say that i bear rmcnew no disrespect, because i do; as an individual, i disrespect him immensely.  but i am perfectly willing to cooperate with him in this particular setting and i do not feel that my comments reflect otherwise. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 20:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, if that's how dignified, diplomatic people address each other in a professional setting, super. If that's the type or rhetoric that's likely to make this editor easier to work with, and that is unlikely to provoke reactions like mine above, then super. If there's a more effective and static-free way to get where we're going, then I'll see you on board that train. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * all of my comments have been firmly grounded in the content of the dispute in question, and that is the only thing that i am here to discuss. i will not tone down any rhetoric, because i do not have any rhetoric to tone down; no statement that i have made addresses anything but the content of his arguments (except my response to you, above) -- i'm not sure if you disagree with that, but if you do, i don't understand why.  i do not really see why this type of behavior is unreasonable, or what you would have me do differently than provide a frank evaluation of the matter at hand. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 21:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm here to work on this article, not to argue with you. Forget it. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * all right. glad we're getting somewhere. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 19:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can establish, the linking of Socionics to the Zodiac is a hypothesis of Rmcnew - he believes there is an "obvious" connection between the Socionic functions and the "360 degree circle" of the zodiac. Wikipedia should not be used to represent his "theory". RudieBoy (talk) 17:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's why this page is here to focus on sources, and not on people's opinions. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as source information is concerned socionics has been called a protoscience by socionic professionals. Protosciences in the western and eastern world world were typically based on 360 degree circles. Socionics, as it compares to the 'group theory' mathematics of Gregory Reinin does fit into a 360 degree circle, as well as compare to the western zodiac through the tattwas. --Rmcnew (talk) 18:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

10.1. Philosophical ties to hermetic philosophies

 * Aushra Augusta at Wikisocion.org/en

Socionics has philosophical ties to hermetic philosophies, such as the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn and also Rosicrucianism. It is at this time unknown whether the original founders of socionics knowingly borrowed from such philosophies in a frame which would imply an association with hermetic or other magical organizations,, although obvious correlations between socionics theory, occult and esoteric philosophies derived from such groups have caused speculation that this is the case. In relationship to the formation of socionics theory much of Aušra Augustinavičiūtės source information could be contributed to unknown underground information networks and book smuggling operations that existed previous to the collapse of the Soviet Union. The extent of Aušra Augustinavičiūtė's own personal beliefs and mystical, religious, or esoteric activities beyond the comparison of her theory to others and what is stated in her books are otherwise unknown, as there is currently no biography on her life or known documentation available to cite the exact extent. However, people who knew Aušra Augustinavičiūtė before her death have documented that she was fascinated with mysticism, and this dominated at least the later half of her life. It is possible that she was not even aware during her life that her theory contains esoteric and occult elements, and that she perceived her activities to be normal and scientific.

Discussion (10.1)
First of all, this is speculation by User:Rmcnew. I think it's interesting and worth investigating, personally, because we don't know much about how people got information behind the Iron Curtain. But it would be a lot more useful for Rmcnew to actually research that and submit it a report on it, even if it takes some years. It may or may not prove his hypothesis that Augusta was influenced by mysticism, but it would be worth a shot.

In the absence of this report, there is no reliable evidence for his assertion. Tcaudilllg (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

What tcaud says is incorrect and he is baseing his assumption purely on a belief that I am stateing here that there is a "conspiracy", which while I do think could make for talk I don't think that there is necessarily enough evidence for the claim, so I have no interest on making a report on this and I deny that it is an appropiate suggestion, and the paragraph has no central basis on this. I do know that protoscientific methods are often based cosmologies, and that mystical movements are based on cosmologies, and that Ausura Augusta was reportedly involved with mysticism according to those who knew her personally. Her involvement with mysticism is verifiable in this regards. However, her involvement with mysticism does not necessarily mean that she had an association with hermetic movements, but it is an odd correspondance that hermetic mystic societies such as the Golden Dawn and Roscrucianism have used tattwas in their cosmologies, and if you know anything about the tattwas, chakras, psychic energy and then know about the esoteric development between socionics you can see that there is an undeniable similarity in usage and methods between hermetic based societies and the way that Ausura Augusta had used the socionic functions. It is undeniable in fact. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that you had sneakily edited the paragraph before it was placed her to say "though such has been speculated" in place of "though the ties are obvious and evident". I had to make an edit in order to convey my position correctly, as it was distorted by that edit made by tcaudillig. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * for one thing, wikisocion pages probably should not be used as sources. more importantly, however, there is absolutely no basis for the stated material at the linked source. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Niffweed, if you would ever bother to look and research into the methods behind using tattwas, chakras and psychic energy that decended from the Golden Dawn and other hermetic organizations and then compare that to ausura augustas methods behind using the socionic functions, chakras, and information metabolism you can clearly see that there is a philosophical connection, so it is completely valid to make these assertions. Whether or not ausura augusta was involved in these organizations is the speculative questions, while the esoteric connection is obvious and should be readily assumed. There is no question about it. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * i believe your response is thoroughly unwarranted by a brief scan of the sources in question; i see no connection to socionics at all, and it is not a speculation that aushra might have been involved in esotericism; there is no evidence to suggest that she was. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 01:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

To claim that "there is no evidence to suggest that she was" is exactly what I am talking about when I say "making vague assertions without going to deep in the hope that this would result in the removal of information. I know for a fact that you know that if you really looked into it, it would be extremely obvious that socionics is esoteric. Except that you don't want to admit it, so you make vague assertions that there is no evidence when the evidence is right in front of you and obvious. I doubt you are that blind to it. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * again ignoring your baseless assumptions about what i have and haven't read (i can't be bothered to post long explanations about sources so obviously flawed; i only have so much time): in reference to this particular source, first of all it's from wikisocion -- that's a problem. more importantly, it suggests absolutely nothing about augusta's ties to mysticism during the time period when she was developing socionics; any extrapolation that she was is, first of all, inconsistent with the myriad other sources on the topic of augusta's early works, but also a non sequitur, from the standpoint that there is absolutely, nothing whatsoever written on the page suggestive to that end -- it's a huge leap of faith to say that augusta's mysticism in her last couple years of life has anything whatsoever to do with socionics, and it's not attributable to this source. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 03:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

10.2. Mystical esoteric foundations of socionics

 * Paragraph 1
 * 
 * Johndavidson.org
 * Golden-dawn at blogspot.com

In Aušra Augustinavičiūtė's first book, "the dual nature of man" she 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 much the same way that socionic functions were equated to the human body in original socionics theory, the esoteric association "The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn" states that the tattwas, the cosmological and esoteric elements that the socionic elements were derived from "flow in regular rotation throughout the nervous system of the human body, exactly as in the Universe. 'As above, so Below.'" Chakras and tattwas are the basis behind original socionics theory.


 * Paragraph 2 + Blockquote
 * 

Since Aušra Augustinavičiūtė and the formation of initial socionics theory there have been a few conflicting associations between the socionics functions and the chakras, though they are mostly speculative comparisons. Yet socionic authors do from time to time make comparisons between the socionic functions (tattwas) and chakras. For example, one model by Russian Socionics author Olga Tangemann based on chakras, psychic energy and the functions known as "The Butterfly Model of a Human Psyche" is described as follows:

The associative model of a human psyche is based on the model of the informational metabolism and psychoanalytic concepts, in which components of personality, socionic functions and colors of the chakras are considered as a dialectic interaction and expression of psychic energy. A human psyche seeks the harmony and balance between the mind and soul, between the physical and psychic components of personality. Traditional socionics study informational metabolism of a person and does not pay enough attention to the dynamic processes within the psyche and without those the informational metabolism could not be fully understood and explained. The Butterfly model (the associative model) of a human psyche is aimed partly to fill the gap in our understanding of a human psyche from the perspective of psychodynamics as well as to proclaim the indissoluble unity of the information and energy processes within the psyche from the perspective of psychology, socionics, philosophy and esoterics.

Discussion (10.2)
the john davidson source is improperly referenced, but is independently published probably legitimate reference material, though i know nothing about it. as a relationship focusing on both neuroscience and esoteric approaches, it may have a place in the article, under something akin to "other studies and hypotheses" of this relationship. its relevance to the relationship between socionics functions and esoteric constructs, however, is questionable, and it may not belong here.

the olga tangemann reference is also legitimate, though it is a hypothesis partially concerned with relating socionics to chakras and should be treated as such a hypothesis, rather than as evidence that "traditional socionics study does not pay enough attention to dynamic processes within the psyche" which is a loaded and unencyclopedic message.

the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn or any reference to it or its descendents seems entirely irrelevant to socionics. it is a more or less fringe religious order that has nothing at all to do with the principles on which socionics is based, as far as i can tell. i see no reason why the linked blog has any relationship to socionics, in terms of its hypotheses, content, or doctrine. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 21:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Niffweed, if you would ever bother to look and research into the methods behind using tattwas, chakras and psychic energy that decended from the Golden Dawn and other hermetic organizations and then compare that to ausura augustas methods behind using the socionic functions, chakras, and information metabolism you can clearly see that there is a philosophical connection, so it is completely valid to make these assertions. Whether or not ausura augusta was involved in these organizations is the speculative questions, while the esoteric connection is obvious and should be readily assumed. There is no question about it.--Rmcnew (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * this comment is a copy of a comment also pasted in the discussion above this one; i have responded to it there. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 02:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

11. Criticism of socionics theory (rational skepticism)

 * -


 * -
 * -
 * -
 * -
 * -
 * -
 * -
 * -

The main foundation of socionics is esoteric, and is therefore scientifically identified as a protoscience (see pseudoscience). Socionics in its origional foundation has also borrowed much from esoteric, traditional and alternative healing practices from chinese and indian medicine. Similar to other past cosmological theories socionics is based upon the mathematics in relation to a 360 degree circle, and corresponds exactly to the western [and possibly other] zodiacs. While the main foundation of socionics theory was derived by Antoni_Kępiński and his information metabolism (see also psychic energy) theory other old world practices, such as speculative and experimental types of physiognomy have been included within socionics theory. Currently socionist make no claims that socionics is currently a legitimate science, though the potential exists that it may eventually become such with valid scientific experimentation. As of yet no substantial scientific experimentation has been conducted on the theory. Since socionics is currently scientifically held to be a protoscience, it 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. Although at times some proponents of socionics theory have fraudently attempted to hide critical information directly exposeing socionics as a protoscientific mystic psychology in order to pseudoscientifically promote socionics as an acceptable and legitimate science or to satisfy a sense of bias against socionics source material, socionics itself is esoterically labeled a mystic psychology and makes no claims to scientific verifiability according to modern methods of scientific testing.


 * Paragraph 2
 * -
 * -

There are two divergent views in socionics theory according to eastern and western methodologies. In the east it is more common to equate comparisons between socionics and chakras, zodiacs, new age style thinking and holistic alternative medicines. The western tendency is to view socionics as a similar typology to Jung and MBTI, which is disconnected from such esoteric elements. What this demonstrates is that two divergent styles of socionics have emerged with their own cultural expectations and backgrounds. One style being mystical and esoteric based, and the other empirical and pseudo-scientific based. Proponents of each view have tended to compete and oppress the opposite view, and this has caused divergent splits in interpretations and usages of socionics theory.


 * Paragraph 3
 * 

Antoni Kępiński and his information metabolism theory were the original basis behind socionics theory as it was developed by Aušra Augustinavičiūtė. His theory borrowed heavily from chinese medicine, indian medicine, alternative medicine, tattwas, chakras and esoteric understandings of psychic energy. Although it has been claimed openly (and falsely) by many familiar with socionics that Carl Jung's theory and similar typologies were the main motivation behind the development of socionics theory all evidence suggests that Antoni Kępiński, esoteric and cosmological understandings of the human body had a much broader influence over the development of socionics than Carl Jung, his theory and Myer-Briggs typology ever had, though it could be said that all three typology theories have a foundational basis in esoteric cosmology and alchemy. Socionics currently has no scientific validation to date.

Discussion (11)
Para 1: This is not the opinion of professionals as stated in the journals. There is no evidence of a conspiracy.

Para 2: Rmcnew lives in the West. We should get professional opinions from practicing socionists in the East.

Para 3: The source does not justify the thesis. Tcaudilllg (talk) 21:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Para 1: I don't know why tcaud keeps talking about a "conspiracy", but he is distorting my actual position (I think possibly intentionally) in order to discredit materials that are valid and I do not appreciate it. His statement "this is not the opinion of professionals as stated in the journals" is unfounded. It is, however, the way that someone who was looking at socionics from a "non-proponents" viewpoint would describe socionics, and that is why it has a neutral and important basis within the article.

Para 2: Location has nothing to do with "verifiable sources", but location (through isolation and influence of culture) often does play a part in "splits in interpretation". The verifiable sources listed prove that there are splits in interpretation between the east and the west in how socionics has been approached, used, and implemented. For example, I doubt that Tcaudilllg is going to be interested in talking about "the colors of chakras" in relation to "psychic energy" and "esoterics" as Russian socionists Olga does in her "Butterfly Model of the Psyche".

Also, there is a source that shows that socionists in russia have used chakras equated with the socionic functions in ways that are remiscent of the same knowledge that is used in accupuncture. --Rmcnew (talk) 22:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Para 3: paragraph 3 is lacking sources to the case. --Rmcnew (talk) 22:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to say anything else about it. Tcaudilllg (talk) 09:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * most of these come from wikisocion, which is questionable as a source of reference material and should probably not be used.
 * more importantly, however, the conclusions derived from the various sources are completely unsupported. a few of the sources (ie the socionics.org article) to give brief mention to possible hypotheses of relationships between socionics and chakras.  this is an extremely far cry from saying things like "there are two main approaches to socionics; in the east, there is widespread acceptance of the relationship between socionics and esoteric constructs" or things like this; this, in fact, is a claim which is unsupported by the vast majority of socionics literature.  while there are some hypotheses here and there, they do not deserve the type of treatment that they are currently given.  most of the sources, however, are merely irrelevant to the claims of an esoteric foundation of socionics.  this does NOT apply to the identification of socionics as a protoscience, which may be correct (i am not a priori familiar with the difference between a protoscience and a pseudoscience, i will look into that); however, there is no evidence presented towards the claim that this is due to esoteric formulation.
 * the section has enough basis to present some hypotheses (ie, olga's) to the end of a connection between chakras and socionics, but at present is completely NPOV and, if maintained, should be scrapped and completely rewritten. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Socionics in the east has a historical relationship with working with chakras decending from the methods Ausura Augustusta used, but they were speculative methods. There are plenty of sources on the internet in russian that testify that there is a tradition of using chakras with socionic functions for either holistic methods or speculative informational purposes. There is a divergent split in thought between those who tend towards holistic (mystical) methods and those who use empiracle methods. Dmitri Lytov and Rick Delong have both spoken about this split. Dmitri refers to the split as "the time where socionics was at this end something mystical" and "the socionics as a new science or psychology". Rick Delong corresponding calls socionics a "protoscience", which is basically a "new science with potential to become an established science". However, claiming that a protoscience is necessarily scientific according to modern scientific testing techniques usually leads to accusations that the protoscience is pseudoscience, so there is a certain barrier that should be respected. There is the potentiality that socionics could be recognized as a legitimate social science academically when it become clear that the behaviors describable in socionics theory are "repeatable and learnable in a physical sense", like similar to a martial art or seduction artist technique. Otherwise, the descriptions are too vague and you might as well just call socionics astrology. There would be no methodology behind it. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * please source the comments by lytov. i do not dispute that rick states that socionics is a protoscience, nor do i dispute whether it is or is not a protoscience, but this has nothing to do with the alleged split between esoteric and empirical approaches. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 02:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. It does have something to say about the split. Rick's assertion that socionics is a protoscience is directly related to Dmitri Lytov's assertion that socionics has had seperate empirical and esoteric developments, and that there was a point in time where socionics was in danger of completely becoming something entirely mystical. --Rmcnew (talk) 22:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

"In 1980—1995 socionics existed as a "club of adherents" outside the official psychology. Groups of socionists appeared in different cities of the Soviet Union, but this was not enough to make socionics recognized by official psychologists. On the one hand, such isolation from psychologists positively influenced socionics: it developed without Marxist-Leninist stereotypes that overloaded Soviet psychological works of that time. On the other hand, such isolation created an illusion among many socionists that socionics were not a part of psychology, it rather were “a new science” with its own methods, subject etc. This was a dangerous trend: there was a real danger that socionics would turn into something esoteric, mystical." http://www.socioniko.net/en/articles/lytovs-intro2.html --Rmcnew (talk) 22:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I should not that Dmitri Lytov above is expressing concern that socionics would be "backtracking towards mysticism and esoterics" in calling socionics a protoscience, which proves that there is in fact two seperate views, one empirical based and another esoteric based. In fact, Dmitri Lytov is also confessing that socionics had an esoteric development by this statement. Otheriwse, it would not have been a concern of his. --Rmcnew (talk) 22:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * no; it does not; my interpretation is that you are misreading the article and avoiding its emphasis on the historical perspective of the situation. the passage basically talks about socionics as being outside of widespread acceptance in the scientific community, an appropriate topic for the article.  while there are some hypothesized correlations between socionics and esoteric matters (also an appropriate topic for the article, as i've been saying -- the key word being hypothesized), and no doubt some interest in socionics from esoteric individuals, there isn't any evidence from that quote to suggest two distinct and well-supported schools of thought (of which there were not), and certainly nothing to suggest that esoteric ideas had anything to do with augusta's ideas or anyone else's in the classical establishment. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 07:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The earlier passage I wrote referencing Filippov was far superior to any of this. I think it should be restored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcaudilllg (talk • contribs) 21:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * can you link it here? Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 03:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&u=http://www.socioniko.net/ru/articles/filippov-comment.html (if it's not all translated the first time, reload the page to translate the rest) Tcaudilllg (talk) 13:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The flaw with Niffweed's argument above is that by simply calling socionics a protoscience, you are saying that socionics has an esoteric basis. This is why Dmitri Lytov was concerned in his statement about people calling socionics a "new science" (he was referenceing calling socionics a protoscience). Dmitri Lytov was also acknowledgeing that there are esoteric and mystical views in socionics theory, though I doubt that was the total intent to make a confession by writting that paragraph. It also shows that it is a common enough view to refer to socionics as a protoscience (thus justifying Rick Dulong's assertion that socionics is a protoscience) --Rmcnew (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * nonsense, wikipedia's own discussion of a protoscience states that "By extension, 'protoscience' may be used in reference to any set of beliefs or theories that have not yet been tested adequately by the scientific method but which are otherwise consistent with existing science, [thus being] a new science working to establish itself as legitimate science." esoteric foundations have nothing to do with the term. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 03:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Explain to me how socionics hasn't been vetted in terms of the "scientific method". The method has three parts: collect data, hypothesize, test. Socionists do all three all the time, with the distinction that they are testing individual reactions and behaviors. Just because the cognitive psychologists (some of them) disagree with the use of introspection and inquiry as valid testing methods, doesn't mean they are completely invalid, especially when handled with skill. In fact, I would argue that socionics is the discipline which practices "experience" -- those hard lessons we learn in life, the personal "edges" we keep to ourselves when we get them... the "unspoken" assessment which guide our collective judgment. There's a rush to judgment by the cognitive psychologists, making these claims that everything we know about personality must be proven before it can be believed, or else it must be malleable because rats are. (that they know!) Well it's bullshit.


 * I am, however, speaking of the future of socionics: the trait theory it is to become.... I agree that many of the things socionics reveals are far outside the realm of common experience; if anything, we are becoming aware of the forces that shape our prejudices. While I agree that these advances are desired, they should be sought for their medical applications and NOT as conclusive proof of how humans work. Tcaudilllg (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * there's nothing wrong with "introspection and inquiry," but these things can hardly be said to be scientifically verifiable. one of the fundamental components of the scientific method is reproduceability of results; that is to say, that if someone doesn't agree with your conclusion, then they can read your procedure, find out exactly what you did, and reproduce the experiment for themselves and hopefully be convinced of its veracity (or critique ways that your experiment involved confounding variables, or whatever other bickering might go on in scientific circles).  to the degree that introspective assessments in things like socionics cannot be reliably reproduced or experienced by anyone else, they do not qualify as scientifically verifiable.  this doesn't mean that there aren't ways that socionics couldn't be examined in relatively scientific ways, but the typical socionics studies that i've seen have affirmed the subjects as individual types, and then compared their differences.  among the only things that have done otherwise that i'm familiar with is some of the work by talanov, who has used written assessments and lots of trait/factor analysis relationships (which he places at about 85% accuracy with his type assessments, i think -- i might be a bit off with this figure).  i've also heard other people talk about talanov's model as being subject to scientific criteria, which i haven't seen, as i don't personally understand talanov's model. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 21:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Talanov's model assumes that neurological impulses = awareness. The problem with his model is that it's too early to say which neuron types are involved in what: the brain atlas is not yet completed and won't be for decades. What his model does is try to isolate regions of the brain and say, in no uncertain terms, that specific activities by neurons in a given region will correlate to definite psychological functions. What those activities are and the states that precede them are the subject of his research. Tcaudilllg (talk) 10:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * interesting. obviously, i don't know enough about it. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 01:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Summary
This section is just to keep track of which sections are in dispute. Please direct discussion of the actual content to the appropriate section, and only use this summary section to note the existence of the dispute. If we can keep this section simple, it'll be a good roadmap. After identifying which sections are basically fine, and dealing with any easy issues there, I think we can focus on the particularly contentious sections, one by one.


 * 0 Lead


 * 1 Jung's psychological types
 * This section seems to be uncontroversial, background-type information about Jung. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 2 Information elements
 * I'm not smelling controversy here, maybe just a simple question of adding an appropriate source, cited appropriately? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 3 The 16 types
 * The issues with this section seem to be fairly routine and uncontroversial to deal with (downplay MBTI, translate sources); I think we can label it "not on fire", yes? -GTBacchus(talk) 15:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * as far as source materials go, not on fire. the dispute about whether or not MBTI names should be included in the table has been ongoing for a long time, getting it resolved would be a good thing. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 4 Model A
 * This entire section needs a lot more content. Personally I'd like to integrate the dimensionality section in here, in a lot more depth. Dimensionality was derived before Model B, and merely became a component of it. It's just as applicable to Model A. Tcaudilllg (talk) 02:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * dimensionality can be related to model A, but it isn't central to what model A deals with. ideally it really belongs under "other models" or something like that.  either way, treated as another hypothesis, nobody will have any problems with it. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 08:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 4.1 Nature of functional positions
 * 4.2 Blocks of the psyche
 * 4.3 The 16 types in Model A


 * 5 Intertype relations
 * [sub-sections omitted]
 * Any problems here? This part seems to be uncontroversial. Does it want sourcing? -GTBacchus(talk) 01:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ideally, yes, this should be sourced, which ideally should be a part of a massive restructuring of the entire article. however, none of the material here is especially controversial. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 02:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, there's massive restructurings, sure. I think at this point, we'll do well to separate "sections not actively on fire" from the other kind. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 6 Groups of types
 * 6.1 Clubs
 * 6.2 Quadras
 * 6.3 Temperaments


 * 7 Other models
 * Just a note: we have a lot more info on Model B now. This section could be improved. Tcaudilllg (talk) 02:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 7.1 Model T
 * This one seems to be acceptable to all parties? Yes? No? Not sure? -GTBacchus(talk) 01:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * again, i have no idea what the exact referenced source is, but model T is complete fair game for this article in my book. given the rather neutral treatment of this section (and correct identification of model T as merely another competing hypothesis), i don't think it should be that controversial. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's the current state of the art. There are some other models, but they are strictly "in the works". Most notable about them is that they concern a completely different phenomena, the "second type" hypothesis. But it's too early to mention them, nor have they been discussed except in a handful of magazine article (interviews only) and blog posts.
 * The "subtype" concept is a completely seperate phenomena from the "second type"; has been studied for a number of years; and is held by the majority of socionists to be empirical. It was proposed by Viktor Gulenko and has since been validated by several other leading socionists. Tcaudilllg (talk) 02:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 8 Methods of type identification


 * 9 Cultural influence
 * 9.1 In the West


 * 10 Esoteric Foundation
 * 10.1 Philosophical ties to hermetic philosophies
 * 10.2 Mystical esoteric foundations of socionics
 * Everything in section 10 seems to be in dispute. Is that accurate? -GTBacchus(talk) 01:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * basically, yes Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 02:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's impossible to say whether it's true or not. Augusta is dead, and as Rick has said "the secret died with her". Rmcnew is a professional and he should act like one: if he makes a claim, he should back it up. Personally I think he thinks himself something of a civil rights activist for metaphysicians, and this is, in his view, the great "joining of the worlds". There's no doubt that duality is referring to metaphysics; but by that token, so does relativity. (does it not?) Tcaudilllg (talk) 02:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Everything in section 10 is backed up by verifiable sources. I am not doing this for metaphysicians so much as that I am taking a non-proponents view in the article. A proponent of socionics theory would probably never write an article using the sources that were included, because it exposes that there is a division in interpretation in socionics theory. I completely and utterly disagree with anyone who makes claims that socionics has no esoteric ties, that socionics has no link between Kepimsky's "information metabolism" and psychic energy, tattwas, and chakras. I think that most of the denial to effects are either on account of ignorance to the subject or that there is objection from proponents to "non-laymen language" and "non-proponent critical analysis". I am in fact sure that many of the objections and disputes that arise towards 10 have to do with the fact that the article is loosely taking a "non-proponent position", except that in itself neither warrants its removal (which I believe is the main excuse or argument that is being used by proponents) and rather actually shows that the article deserves a place in light of sources that do indeed show that these assertions are correction. --Rmcnew (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not what this section of this page is for. All we're trying to do right now is identify the disputes, as to where they are in the article. You seem to agree that this section is in dispute, among the people editing this page. Yes? -GTBacchus(talk) 16:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is in dispute for the reasons I specifically mentioned, yes. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 11 Criticism of socionics theory (rational skepticism)
 * Definitely in dispute. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I can see 11 being disputed by proponents who don't want socionics exposed to any sort of skeptical or critical analysis or the revealing of source information that esposes socionics as a protoscientific mystic psychology that has a basis in esoteric and occult methods. In fact, I see a pattern already among some of the commenters that they are avoiding actually discussing the sources from a non-neutral standpoint. For example, you should notice that there is much talk from both niffweed and tcaulldig with vague determinations about the sources where they say things like "sources do not support the article" with absolutely no deep discussion about any of these sources. All they have done is make vague assertions and no discussion at all about the actual content of the article in relation to the sources. This should be looked at very suspeciously, as though the proponents of socionics theory are hoping that if they avoid any actual serious discussion, they can passivelly ignore the information exposeing socionics theory as an esoteric relic with the hopes that the information exposeing socionics theory as a protoscientific mystic psychology would either go away or would be forced to go away. It is an impossibility that one can look at the sources with a non-neutral eye and never see that socionics has heavy esoteric ties to hermetic and other cosmological methods that were once considered scientific, but are now either considered pseudoscience or protoscience. So, unless there is serious discussion about the actual content of the sources in regards to socionics theory I am not going to be satisfied with the vague assertions that the proponents are making in regards to the exposition of socionics theory to critical and skeptical analysis and its esoteric development. --Rmcnew (talk) 22:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Rmcnew, I see that you're interested in talking about other editors. I'm going to ignore all of that, because I'm here to talk about the article. I'm good at detecting bullshit, and at seeing what kind of edits are supported by sources. I'll thank you to stop spoon-feeding me that. I'm trying to have a "serious discussion about the actual content of the sources in regards to socionics theory", but you seem more interested in talking about your boyfriends. If you want to be a part of this process — and I want you to be a part of it — then  stop the personally directed remarks. If you continue to make this claims about the other editors, then you will blocked, and unable to help with the article. Do you understand. The same applies to them - if they'd rather talk about you than about the article, they'll be blocked. Now, can we put down our crushes on each other, and get to work? -GTBacchus(talk) 16:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that you are repeating information from critics who have basically commited libel and slander. You don't want to be involved with that in the case anything comes legal. Just some friendly advice that you don't want to be saying or repeating anything from critics whose only means of confrontation is to commit slander and libel. Especially when it involves saying or repeating information that is part of a current lawsuit. You probably don't want to get involved in that (I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you simply made a mistake here in bringing the above paragraph up). --Rmcnew (talk) 19:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The earlier passage I wrote referencing Fillipov was far superior to any of this. I think it should be restored. Tcaudilllg (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Question
So now that we've discussed and affirmed which areas are dispute... now what? Tcaudilllg (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say we pick one to work on first. We can evaluate the sources currently there, find others as necessary, and then start writing collaboratively. What do you think is a good spot to jump in? -GTBacchus(talk) 13:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Right from the top. Tcaudilllg (talk) 20:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I would personally like everyone to start in the areas of dispute that were mostly written by me. The reason being that I would rather get the reworking on that done ASAP with everyones blessing (and my approval of the rewrite) and get on with my life. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I won't be party to it. I am concerned only with explaining the models. Tcaudilllg (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Rudieboy would be interested in helping with a rewrite for the esoteric portion. I would be curious what he would write atleast. --Rmcnew (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it should be strip down to a sentence or two, or even removed entirely. As Augusta hypothesized Socionics as a theory to help explain human relationships, and as she treated it as a science in its early stages as opposed to something esoteric, I think it would only be acceptable to have a line or two about it may have been hypothesized that Socionics could work alongside something considered as a pseudoscience (i.e. I think it may be okay to mention the hypotheses of leading mainstream socionists).  But I do not think it's okay to say that Socionics may have had esoteric origins, as I do not believe there is any satisfactory evidence. RudieBoy (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * that seems appropriate to me. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 04:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Note to redieboy only: I think some of what you wrote is a part of the debate. It could be accurate to say that ausura augusta believed that her work was scientific. The problem is that if her methods were based on something already deemed protoscientific or pseudoscientific, it would be innacurate to say that her methods were scientific. Nevertheless, her methods could be considered empirical in a "social science" sort of context, but in a protoscientific way and not necessarily derived from modern methods. For example, photoanalysis and typing by facial features or body characteristics is protoscientific at best as an empirical method. The other alternative that was derived is the mystical approach derived from esoteric practices. Those are the two viewpoints in debate here.--Rmcnew (talk) 18:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with a smaller version of the information only under the circumstances that the information that would be there is quality, actually addresses specific esoteric topics that are in question in socionics theory neutrally, discusses the history of socionics in relation to esoterism, part of it discusses a neutrally stated non-proponents critical viewpoint of socionics, fully represents both the empirical viewpoint and mystical viewpoint, and lists a comparison between socionics and other esoteric theories or possibly even religions. That is what I would expect in a shorter version and collaborative rewrite. --Rmcnew (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * i don't know that there are that many "specific esoteric topics" to be addressed, and i don't know that the section merits a detailed discussion of all of them, as opposed to a brief mention and a reference; this really is not something that has been demonstrated to be a widely accepted viewpoint. other than a few references to chakras, i don't think i've seen much of any original comparative material, other than your own original research into the zodiac and whatever else.  i also think there's no attributable material to which to discuss any history of socionics in relation to esoteric subjects; this, in contrast to the various existing hypotheses (which i don't really care about personally, and so have only taken passing note of), is something i have been looking for specifically in the sources you've provided, and i haven't seen anything at all that would suggest a historical influence of socionics' development -- the only hypotheses about it are retrodictive to the existing socionics models.  so, basically, i wouldn't think of the "shorter version" you propose as described here as being an appropriate representation of the topic. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 01:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem I see with your assertion that the viewpoint of using esoteric methodologies, chakras, and various views of psychic energy is a fringe viewpoint has to do with the fact that Ausura Augusta herself had developed techniques using chakras, and that the information metabolism theory as came from Kepimsky is reportedly related to have come from esoteric views of psychic energy. The article abstract in question, which is a few sentence abstract of a legitimate socionics author and initially came from a paper published non-internet source also equates Carl Jung's view of psychic energy to "Kundalini Yoga", and then asserts that information metabolism as used by Ausura Augusta has an aptitude towards esoterism. It says this pretty blatantly in the article abstract, and in english. It is undeniable. --Rmcnew (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * not at all; nowhere does it suggest that augusta directly had anything to do with esoteric materials. you are fabricating this concept; it is not based in the sources that you have referenced.  this is going around in circles as you continue to find new sources that support this particular idea in indirect and entirely unverifiable ways. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 08:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you done anything to actually HELP find new better verifiable sources that may not be your own personal opinion on the matter are are you just going to sit around and criticize any sources that do come in. Because what it looks like to me is that you just don't want the viewpoint represented at all and are just sitting around hoping that you can descredit anything at all that appears to represent verifiable anything you don't want written about. Now, if you can actually help find sources that I know are not in favor of your viewpoint, that would impress me. So far I have not seen it. I would appreciate it if you would take the time to look at things from another groups viewpoint in the socionics world for once that might actually be signifigantly different from your own. I am sure that your intentions would be seen as more sincere when you are ever able to do this. --Rmcnew (talk) 01:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I also found this socionics source earlier today that does indeed address the debate here concerning socionics and analytical psychology:

verifiable source in english stating the aptitude of esotericism in socionics theory
Analytical Psychology Kameneva I.P. Psychical Energy: Symbols and Metamorphoses

C.G.Jung's ideas on psychical energy are considered in the context of his psychoanalytical experience set forth in his work Libido, Its Metamorphoses and Symbols. Symbols of psychical energy indicate the direction of its movement from the mother to other objects and images, which in general reminds dynamics of Kundalini energy in Tantra Yoga. In A.Augustinavichiute's model the scheme of informational metabolism of each type determines specifics of its energetic potential and in separate cases also aptitude towards certain esoteric practices. Key words: symbols, consciousness, unconscious, archetypes, psychical energy (libido), system of Chakras, psychical functions, informational metabolism, energetic metabolism, mental loop, vital loop, socionics.

Source: http://www.socionics.ibc.com.ua/ejpsy/psy_0612.html --Rmcnew (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Constructive ideas on how to do the collaborative esoteric article rewrite
I think that instead of injecting our own ideas constantly and fighting, we should base the rewrite on this premise found in this link http://www.socionics.ibc.com.ua/ejpsy/psy_0612.html. Otherwise, I have a feeling it is just going to be fighting about what should be included in the rewrite all the time with no actual constructive rewritting being done. --Rmcnew (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * rmcnew, you haven't even looked at the text of that article. i have no idea where to find it; how and why would you propose that we rewrite an article based on a four-line abstract? Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 01:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It could be possible that they have the text online in russian, but you would have to check the russian language abstract for the link. --Rmcnew (talk) 22:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The russian is here. It could have a link to an online version of the article in russian: http://www.socionics.ibc.com.ua/jpsy/psy_0612.html --Rmcnew (talk) 22:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The text of the article itself was published from the Kiev socionics institute, and I am sure that the actual text itself is only in the russian language(at least I would assume it has not been translated yet). The institute tends to only translate the abstracts in english. Nevertheless the few sentence abstract itself is substantial and substantiated among the various other fully substantiated russian sources to the case that chakras and esoteric methods are present in socionics theory, and that those methods descended from the founders. That is enough to justify the existence of esoteric methodology in socionics theory and to write neutral paragraphs concerning this viewpoint in the socionics article.

Now, my suggestion is to put your own personal biases against esoteric methods aside and actually neutrally research this, and to help have these things written and stated neutrally. An important part of neutrality is to learn to put yourself in the shoes of someone else who has a different viewpoint than you. It is alright that you want socionics to be empirical and scientific, but from the viewpoint of someone else who favors legitimate esoteric methods it would be a fair and neutral thing to acknowledge those methods with your own, whether you agree with them or not. Trying to hide the existence of those esoteric methods in light of a legitimate esoteric methodology is unneutral. --Rmcnew (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * there's no bias; there's only the idea that you have no idea what the article says, only the abstract. based on this lack of information you have no basis in saying that there's an esoteric foundation to socionics; you have no idea whether the article says that, or is a hypothesized set of correlations.  basing encyclopedic material off of the abstract is ridiculous; even a machine translation of the article would be sufficient to get the gist of its claims on the matter.  your accusation of my handling this situation in a non-neutral way is entirely false; it is i who am trying to source the article appropriately, yet you seem not reasonably willing to do so, instead resorting to incomplete and highly unrelated articles to push your position -- it is this i have a problem with, not the existence or lack thereof of esoteric roots or material in socionics. 138.16.28.178 (talk) 08:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I stand by the position that the abstracts assertion that "In A.Augustinavichiute's model the scheme of informational metabolism of each type determines specifics of its energetic potential and in separate cases also aptitude towards certain esoteric practices" is correct and supports what I have been saying about socionics theory. --Rmcnew (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

In regards to your accusation "resorting to incomplete and highly unrelated articles to push your position" I am going to dispute this by pointing to the bukalov article here: http://www.socionics.ibc.com.ua/ejpsy/psy_0412.html#top. It is blatant hermeticism. Hermetic movements such as the Golden Dawn have also taught the same sort of cosmology. Why is Bukalov repeating something that comes from hermetic movements? I am curious to what your answer is going to be. --Rmcnew (talk) 01:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Bukalov article where socionics is described cosmologically
Below is a bukalov article abstract in english where socionics is described in a cosmological way.

http://www.socionics.ibc.com.ua/ejpsy/psy_0412.html#top

Physics of Consciousness Boukalov A.V. Conscience and the Universe

It is shown that the universal vacuum if viewed as a conglomerate of relativist fields may be described as a giant computing system that controls movement of micro-particles and macro-bodies (planets, stars, etc.) Alike physical processes run in semiconductor crystals of modern computers used for construction of artificial intelligence systems. As an analogue of macro-computer, the Universe in total inevitably possesses attributes of consciousness and intelligence, and its particular subsystems interact with human consciousness and find their interpretation within the framework of religious systems and beliefs. Key words: consciousness, physical vacuum, computer, computations, religion.

NOTE: This is blatant hermeticism from an established school of socionics and what Bukalov describes above can be found in the kybalion--Rmcnew (talk) 01:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

google key words: russian words for esoterism(эзотеризм), chakra(Чакре), and socionics(Соционика)
эзотеризм Соционика Чакре - http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&q=%D1%8D%D0%B7%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BC+%D0%A1%D0%BE%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0+%D0%A7%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B5&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=&safe=active

Соционика Чакре - http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&q=%D0%A1%D0%BE%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0+%D0%A7%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B5&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=&safe=active

эзотеризм Соционика - http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&q=%D1%8D%D0%B7%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BC+%D0%A1%D0%BE%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=&safe=active

Why is there an official socionics page with an article by Bukalov where he describes things from the kybalion
I am just curious here. If it is true that socionics has no connection whatsoever with hermetic philosophies such as the golden dawn and also roscrucianism, and hermetic books such as the kybalion, then how comes there is an article written by Bukalov that not only is hermetic it is hermetic philosophy found as an article abstract from an actual published article from the established Kiev socionics school?

http://www.socionics.ibc.com.ua/ejpsy/psy_0412.html#top

Physics of Consciousness Boukalov A.V. Conscience and the Universe

'''It is shown that the universal vacuum if viewed as a conglomerate of relativist fields may be described as a giant computing system that controls movement of micro-particles and macro-bodies (planets, stars, etc.) Alike physical processes run in semiconductor crystals of modern computers used for construction of artificial intelligence systems. As an analogue of macro-computer, the Universe in total inevitably possesses attributes of consciousness and intelligence, and its particular subsystems interact with human consciousness and find their interpretation within the framework of religious systems and beliefs. Key words: consciousness, physical vacuum, computer, computations, religion.''' --Rmcnew (talk) 01:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Now, how come hermetic philosophy is found on an official socionics page that publishes abstracts from published sources( regardless of the presence of only an abstract and probably no article text immediatelly available) ? --Rmcnew (talk) 01:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Because there was no one to tell him he couldn't. He was the head of the institute and as such, he had absolute authority over what got published and what didn't.

Lytov is on record as being supportive of Boukalov's basic socionics research, but highly critical of his esoteric forays. 99.148.200.96 (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. Lytov has been critical of the separate and verifiable "mystical and esoteric" movement that exists as a competing viewpoint to the "empirical and (pseudo)scientific" viewpoint in socionics theory. The reason was because Lytov has a fear that socionics "would be going backwards and back into esoteric and mystic concepts" instead of "modern empirical and psychological standards" by acknowledging that socionics was derived out of an oldworld protoscience (or in other terms "a new science"). On the other hand, Bukalov has no apparent problem with acknowledging the older once officially established science that socionics is built upon, and neither do many other socionists. They are simply two different and competing developments of thought in socionics theory. --Rmcnew (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)