User:Pancarlos/sandbox

Criticism
The opinion of scientific community about socionics is not uniform. Socionic analysts and theorists see it as "the fusion of science and technology that makes it possible to predict behavior and activity style of an individual, group of people, and society as a whole" and "the science that discovered the laws of human compatibility". Psychophysiologist Sergey Bogomaz noted that there is no basis to recognize socionics as a separate science. Instead, he considers socionics post-Jungian typology which is more promising than MBTI due to the inclusion of greater number of typological features and the formulation of prerequisites for the study of intertype relationships. He finds the theory of intertype relationships a valuable contribution of Aušra Augustinavičiūtė to Jungian psychology. At the same time, he states that many propositions in socionics lack empirical verification and that large part of the socionic literature is unsystematic, pseudo-scientific and biased. The latter fact discredits socionics in the eyes of psychologists.

At the extreme there are views according to which socionics is an example of pseudoscience. Such view is reperesented by philosopher L. M. Monastirsky from the Southern Federal University. Monastirsky identifies the the use of speculative categories as the first shortcoming of socionics. Secondly, it lacks clearly defined typing method and each socionics school defines methods of their own. Social researcher and philosopher Artemy Magun belives that the existence of socionics and other questionable disciplines, such as synergetics, at Russian universities is a sign of the general crisis of Russian of higher education and, in particular, of the isolation of the post-Soviet tradition of social knowledge from the rest of the scientific world. The issue of socionics was also raised by Russian science journalists in article The pseudoscience about Hamlets and Don Quixotes. Firstly, attention is brought to the way in which socionic sites present their services, promising resolution of complicated life problems in few minutes thanks to a simplified personality test. Unfortunately, each socionics site gives completely different information and there is no convergence between the results of tests published on such websites. Secondly, the article claims that methods of socionics lack objectivity. For example, descriptions of socionic categories are full of imprecise statements such as "usually", "sometimes" and "inclined to", for example: "representatives of type Huxley are often able to accurately predict the course of events in the future". Lastly, the theories upon which socionics was based have been subject to considerable criticism. The methods by which Jung conducted his research led to questioning of the status of analytical psychology as science. For example, Wallis pointed out that Jung claimed to have analazyed over 40 000 dreams but the conclusions he had made strongly depended on his own interpratations - a quality that is unacceptable in modern science.

An important issue in the field of socionics is the problem of the convergence of type diagnoses of different analysts. Large typing experiment carried out in 1999 at the socionics conference in Dnipropetrovsk demonstated that socionic type determination methods suffer from low repeatablilty. For example, 10 different psychological types have been assigned to one person examined by 26 experts and 8 types to other person examined by 16 experts. Negative results of the Dnipropetrovsk experiment motivated socionic analysts to develop more rigorous approaches to type diagnosis.