Talk:Socionics/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Socionics' geographic constraints

The fact that this field of endeavor is only recognized in certain countries of the former USSR and it satellites is telling. Socionics is not recognized in the West. Therefore, why on Earth is this not alluded to in the lede? This pseudoscience "article" is both inscrutable and misleading. Socionics is solely a Soviet construct which attempts to live on beyond the Soviet period.--Quisqualis (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Great Britain, Austria, Germany, United States, Peru, India and others also belong to the countries of the former USSR? :) --Sounderk (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Kindly cite a reliable source for Great Britain.--Quisqualis (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Some British sources are in the article, please read carefully.--Sounderk (talk) 21:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Neither error nor falsification

[1] - neither error nor falsification. Sergeev is member of Commission on Pseudoscience and Research Fraud of Russian Academy of Sciences, see ru:Комиссия по борьбе с лженаукой и фальсификацией научных исследований, he also is editor of the commission website and editor of commission's bulletin "In Defence of Science" (ru:В защиту науки). --Q Valda (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• A mistake or falsification is an attempt to present the opinion of one person - a journalist - for the opinion of the entire commission, which includes many competent doctors of science. They did not sign this article. It's just a private opinion.--Sounderk (talk) 19:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Sergeev is member of commission of Russian Academy of Sciences, editor of its website and of its bulletin. All publications in the bulletin are from commission, otherwise it warns about "private opinion". --Q Valda (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
    • It is not true. There was no any expertise and decision of the commission about socionics. Where is the examination report? Where is the protocol of the decision? This collection is generally devoted to homeopathy. Sergeev as a journalist just wrote his own popular article without any references or sources. And to give him a single mention of socionics for the decision of the academic commission - this is a mistake or a conscious falsification.--Sounderk (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
      • 0) what exactly is not true? he is not member of commission? not editor of its website and of its bulletin? 1) In the case of pseudoscience, scientists are often reluctant to give detailed criticism, because they do not want to give scientific status to pseudoscientific concepts. 2) Sergeev is a science journalist. And of course, one of the main goals of the Commission is public criticism of pseudoscience, and a science journalist is a reliable source in this area. --Q Valda (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
        • From the bulletin ([2] sorry for my translation):

          Bulletin is continuing publication of the Commission on Pseudoscience and Research Fraud at the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences, headed by Acad. E. B. Alexandrov. The articles published in it are aimed at exposing pseudoscience promoted by irresponsible media. Our authors continue to fight against false scientific ideas and projects, against any attempts to undermine the authority of science.

          --Q Valda (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
          • You are trying to give an article of a journalist in a bulletin for an academic source. But a journalist can not be a scientific expert. This is the function of doctors of science. He can only refer to their work on this issue. And an authoritative source can only be a scientific article. And the ballot here does not play a big role. His article - just mentions socionics without any reference. He does not refer to any study. But the commission did not consider and did not conduct any decisions or studies that refute socionics. At the same time, socionics is studied in many state universities of different countries and several thousand scientific articles are devoted to it. Therefore, the opinion of the journalist is deeply mistaken. To present it as an opinion of an academic commission is wrong.--Sounderk (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
            • I was not trying to do what you suggested. I only argued why Sergeev is a representative of the Commission of Russian Academy of Sciences and why he is a reliable source in determining the scientific status of socionics --Q Valda (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

If Sergeev is notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia, then his opinion can be cited. Otherwise, you're violating WP:NOTCONTAGIOUS: he does not become an authoritative source by associating with an organization of authoritative sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I think Sergeyev is quite notable. He is a science journalist, member of Commission on Pseudoscience and Research Fraud of Russian Academy of Sciences (from nearly 60 people only two members are non-scientists, Sergeyev and illusionist Gorny), editor of commission's website and deputy executive editor of its bulletin, he has many publications on science and pseudoscience topics (e.g. in the magazine Vokrug sveta). [3] — for example, he answered questions from Deutsche Welle on behalf of the Commission (on its website). --Q Valda (talk) 01:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Here is Rosanov's (notable scientist, ru:Розанов, Николай Николаевич) opinion [4] about Sergeyev:

A number of serious scholars are of the view that forces for struggle with pseudoscience should not be spent. Highly convincing, on our opinion, the proof of the necessity of this struggle presented by A. Sergeyev

--Q Valda (talk) 01:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• One can not confuse journalism and science and call the opinion of a journalist without academic degree and qualification the conclusion of the commission. Once again I repeat: this is just falsification. A journalist is not a competent scientific expert. In his article he did not refer to anyone - not to academic scientists - nor to the decision of the commission. Because the commission did not consider this issue. For example, this collection dealt with homeopathy. Her analysis was conducted in several articles, which have several dozen references and are signed by many competent specialists. Such an analysis is the basis for the conclusions of the commission on homeopathy. And all the rest is a personal opinion of the journalist.--Sounderk (talk) 23:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Wrong, bulletin is not a collection of individual opinions. Each article reflects the opinion of the entire сommission on pseudoscience — this is their editorial policy. The commission is fully responsible for each publication. --Q Valda (talk) 01:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Each issue of the bulletin has a statement [5] : ″Approved for publication by the RAS Commission on Pseudoscience and Research Fraud″. --Q Valda (talk) 02:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Here is the very message of journalist Sergeeev about the work of the commission: "How is the work of the RAS Commission on combating pseudoscience, how decisions are made?

The commission is a group of specialists from 60 people, whose level and class is confirmed by the Presidium of the RAS, which appoints the composition. At the head is the chairman, who is authorized to give any comments, statements on behalf of the commission, and appoint temporary expert groups on all issues.

Naturally, questions can go beyond the competence of permanent members of the commission - one can not expect that 60 scientists can cover all scientific issues. Their task is to select qualified experts at the right time and supervise their work in the methodological plan: how to make the right argument, to think about the level of its complexity, so that it is available to a wide audience.

These 60 people are not inquisitors, but competent scientists. The commission has many status academicians, and they do not write third-term dissertations. Their task is to say: here this candidate of sciences is a brilliant expert in this topic, I vouch for him. After that, he writes a review of the work or analysis, and the academician checks it. The result is signed by the chairman of the commission." https://www.ucheba.ru/article/4353

But no expert work commission on socionics was not conducted. Nobody accepted any memorandums. Therefore, what the journalist Sergeyev wrote, once mentioning socionics without scientific references is his personal opinion or just a delusion. Therefore, an attempt to present his opinion as a result of the work of the commission is an obvious falsification or scientific forgery.--Sounderk (talk) 10:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Dear Edward321! This is an obvious mistake or falsification. This is the opinion of the journalist, not the commission.--Sounderk (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Journalist Sergeev is an editor in geographical sciences and has nothing to do with psychology. The Academic Commission has never considered Socionics, since Socionics has been taught for over 20 years in 200 universities and is even used to train astronauts and civil aviation pilots. All this is in the article. Socionics comes from the famous typology of Carl Jung and is close to the Myers-Briggs typology, which is used by millions of people. --Sounderk (talk) 17:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • 1) Sergeev is an editor of bulletin "In defence of science", published by Commission on Pseudoscience of RAS, have to repeat this again. Its main theme is public criticism of pseudoscience, not "geographical sciences" or "psychology". 2) Scientific status of Jung typology or Myers-Briggs typology is also questionable. --Q Valda (talk) 00:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • 3) repeat: Each issue of the bulletin has a statement [6] : ″Approved for publication by the RAS Commission on Pseudoscience and Research Fraud″. So its articles are not just private opinions. --Q Valda (talk) 00:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
    • It is very important that participant Q Wald did not even try to put such a text in the Russian-wiki socionics, because everyone who reads in Russian would have been falsified with the opinion of the journalist as a decision of the academic commission! And here is the hope of not knowing the Russian language? --Sounderk (talk) 12:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Wrong. Here is my edit in ru-wiki --Q Valda (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Do not mislead and falsify. This was later rejected and the administrator of the Russian-wiki A.Vajrapani | Alexandrine made a direct ban on the presentation of this material on behalf of the academic commission, because this is the opinion of one person - journalist Sergeyev, rather than the entire commission. After this decision, Q Walda wrote to the administrator "Thank you very much." The only request to clarify is that "not the KBL under the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences was characterized, but such an author in the ballot of such and such", but all the ballots are approved by the commission ("Approved by the RAS Commission on Struggle with pseudoscience and falsification of scientific research "), so the responsibility in the bulletin publications is not only personal, but collective, is not it? -Q Valda 10:47, May 16, 2018 (UTC)" "Administrator's response: "If you take the reference you quoted, the attribution" KBL under the Presidium of the RAS characterized "could be used for assessments taken, for example, from" Memorandum No. 2 of the RAS Commission on Combating Pseudoscience and Falsification of Scientific Research "(P.7 and further), because it says directly: "The Commission declares that ...", and for other articles of the bulletin, where there are no applications on behalf of the Commission, the attribution of the author is appropriate Alexandrine (обс.) 11:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC )" [7]

• After that, the Q Valda himself, in order to avoid sanctions himself, removed all controversial edits from the article[8]Thus in the Russian-wiki socionics his actions were rejected. But here he is trying to do the same, But there is no reason to support such erroneous or falsified actions here. --Sounderk (talk) 23:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

Some russian-speaking sources that considered subject to be a pseudoscience:

• Mineyev, V. V. (2014). Введение в историю и философию науки [Introduction to the history and philosophy of science] (in Russian). Moscow: Directmedia. p. 84. ISBN 9785445875116.

  The long list of pseudoscientific concepts today includes: theory of torsion fields, cold fusion projects, wave genetics, japhetic theory, the theory of "living matter", "new chronology", eugenics, dianetics, cryonics, socionics…

• Abashkina, T. L. (2015). "Формирование психологических терминов на основе прецедентной концептосферы" [Formation of psychological terms on the basis of precedent conceptosphere] (PDF). Actual problems of semantics, lexicology and phraseology (Ukraine) (in Russian) (9): 48–54.

  ...the Barnum effect or Forer effect. This effect to some extent explains the wide popularity of astrology, homeopathy, socionics and other pseudosciences

• Zhilina, V. A.; Nevelev, A. B.; Kamaletdinova, A. Ya. (2017). "Философия, наука, лженаука и наукообразность" [Philosophy, science, pseudoscience and sciolism]. Bulletin of the Chelyabinsk state University (in Russian) (4 (400)): 89–94.

  Pseudoknowledge or pseudoscience is an imitation of scientific knowledge, pursuing consciously or unconsciously some unrecognizable goal and claiming the truth [...] These include astrology, phrenology, homeopathy, parapsychology, ufology, numerology, cryptozoology and cryptobotany, palmistry, socionics...

• Sokol'chik, V. N. (2017). "Феномен паранауки и проблема демаркации знания в постнеклассической науке" [The phenomenon of parascience and the problem of demarcation of knowledge in post-nonclassical science]. Proceedings of BSTU (Belarus) Ser.6, History, philosophy (in Russian) (1 (107)): 113–117.

  An example of pseudoscience is [ ... ] socionics (the idea of Lithuanian economist and psychologist A. Augustinavichiute about the existence of 16 sociotypes, which can be identified with well-known personalities)...

• Sergeyev, A. G. (2017). "Синекдоха отвечания, или Защита гомеопатическая" [Synecdoche of Answering, or Homeopatic Defence] (PDF). In Aleksandrov, E. B.; Efremov, Yu. N.; Sergeyev, A. G. (eds.). В защиту науки [In defense of science] (in Russian). Vol. Bulletin No.19 of Commission on pseudoscience and research fraud of Russian Academy of Sciences. Moscow: ПРОБЕЛ-2000. pp. 90–94. ISBN 978-5-98604-606-8. Retrieved 2018-05-14.

  ...there are dozens of true pseudosciences, such as astrology and palmistry, ESP and parapsychology, cryptobiology and bioenergetics, bioresonance and iridology, creationism and telegonia, UFOlogy and paleoastronautics, eniology and dianetics, numerology and socionics...

  --Q Valda (talk) 00:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Volkov, E. N. (2008). "Воздействие психолога: принципы выбора мировоззренческой позиции и профессионального поведения" [The influence of the psychologist: the principles of choice of attitude and professional behavior]. Практическая психология в междисциплинарном аспекте: проблемы и перспективы. Материалы Первой Международной научно-практической конференции, 15-16 октября 2008 г. [Practical psychology in the interdisciplinary aspect: problems and prospects. Materials of the First international scientific-practical conference, October 15-16, 2008] (in Russian). Dnepropetrovsk.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

  These concepts and discoveries [...] are used exclusively in the form of pseudoscientific and mythological half-occult techniques (like NLP, a "positive thinking", socionics, etc...)

  --Q Valda (talk) 08:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, all these links have the same drawback. 1. They are written not by specialists - psychologists, but by philosophers or philologists who are not psychologists. 2. Socionics is mentioned once, without any reference, which indicates an unfamiliarity with the subject and the unwillingness to analyze numerous studies in this area. Such work - without analysis - can hardly be even called scientific. 3. Scientific and applied works on socionics are presented in the English version of 2500 articles https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=70&q=socionics&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5, and in Russian and other languages ​​- 4240 scientific articles and books . https://scholar.google.com.ua/scholar?start=100&q=sotsionika&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 This indicates the ignorance or ignorance of these philosophers in the matter of the scientific status and development of socionics. 4. The share of 6 articles of these philosophers, singly mentioning socionics without analysis and scientific references in the general scientific content is only 6: 4240 = 0.0014 or 0.14%. Therefore, their importance for the evaluation of socionics is negligible or microscopic according to the rule of WP:NPOV: "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views." --Sounderk (talk) 10:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Wrong. Astrologers (even with academic degree and tons of articles) are not reliable in the determination of scientific status of astrology. Such determination is in the area of science studies and philosophy of science. --Q Valda (talk) 11:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC) (and Volkov is a psychologist) --Q Valda (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
      • None of these works contains an investigation of the subject of socionics. Socionics are mentioned once, without any reference or analysis. Therefore, as sources for Wikipedia, they can not be recognized. Volkov has a scientific degree of a philosopher and is engaged in practical psychology. His short message to the provincial conference contains only a single mention of the word "socionics" and also without any analysis and references. None of these 6 authors have any works devoted to the analysis of socionics. Therefore, their significance is close to zero.--Sounderk (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
        • They consider it pseudoscience, so they just don't think it's a valid area of research. --Q Valda (talk) 00:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
    • about many publications on socionics — you may try to make the same with homeopathy and you will see that this pseudoscience has a much more academic publications. --Q Valda (talk) 00:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
    • about using WP:NPOV — wrong, we need WP:ITA here : ″Care should be taken not to mislead the reader by implying that, because the claim is actively disputed by only a few, it is otherwise supported″. I would like to note that in russian-wiki socionics is considered a fringe theory. --Q Valda (talk) 00:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
      • It is impossible to brief several non-professional authors without references and analysis to counter 4240 to real scientific works. And they were not accepted even in the Russian-wiki socionics.--Sounderk (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
        • Who is non-professional author? For example Mineev is PhD [9], professor of the Department of philosophy, sociology and religious studies in KSPU, his main speciality is social philosophy. --Q Valda (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
        • Zhilina is PhD [10], head of philosophy Department in MSTU, her speciality is social philosophy too. --Q Valda (talk) 20:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
• These authors are not psychologists. They are not specialists in this field. The word "socionics" is mentioned only once in their works. There are no links in these works. Consider these works with a single mention of socionics are important and considering the socionics there is no reason. The administrator of the Russian-wiki banned the use of such works. And Q Valda, after the decision of the administrators of the Russian-wiki, removed such links from the article in which he tried to put them. [11] Therefore, it is not possible to support the use of such banned substandard references, provided there are 4240 normal quality authoritative sources.--Sounderk (talk) 23:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Article protected

...for 3 days due to instability caused by a content dispute. I will add that the WP:BURDEN is on the side who wants to add content, to support the addition. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Criticism, Iarovenko and Chernyaeva: violation of Wikipedia rules

Wikipedia rules prohibit articles of Wikipedia to cite other articles from Wikipedia as authoritative sources. But Iarovenko and Chernyaeva do not give an analysis of socionics, but directly quotes one of the controversial articles of Russian Wikipedia, which is constantly contested: "The corresponding Wikipedia article on Pseudoscience presents ... "Thus Pancarlos brought not the opinion of Iarovenko and Chernyaeva, but their direct quote from Wikipedia. this link must be removed.--Sounderk (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I admit that Iarovenko and Chernyaeva claimed to have used Wikipedia article on pseudoscience as the source of inspiration and this is not fortunate. Nevertheless, we should assume that, as responsible researchers should do, they critically evaluated the information obtained in such way, expanded upon it and not just copy-pasted it. Moreover, their work has been reviewed by other scholars (because this is normal in case of truly scientific journals) and these reviewers obviously had no problems with the issue of the Authors commenting on Wikipedia article.-- Pancarlos (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

This is also the problem that this is not the opinion of the authors themselves, but a review of various sources. And there is directly rewritten a large excerpt from the article in Wikipedia. But the authors do not express their opinion. Therefore, one can not talk about their opinion. Therefore, if you are correct, you should write this: " Iarovenko and Chernyaeva in their review quoted one of the articles in Russian Wikipedia .." You write this? Therefore, reviewers and skipped this text as a quote in a review of various sources of information. But by the rules of Wikipedia you can not refer to other articles in Wikipedia, even if they are placed in other sources. Therefore, this text is subject to deletion.--Sounderk (talk) 12:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Personally I wish I had more time to make this whole Wikipedia article on socionics shorter and more precise. It sounds like an advertising content and not an encyclopedic article. And I think Sounderk that your attitude just strenghtens the impression that socionists have something to hide under the mask of sophistication.-- Pancarlos (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Let's not engage in conspiracy. There are sources and facts, they are given in the article. Socionics has been used for 26 years to train astronauts and 17 years to train civil aviation pilots. And the course is taught in 180-200 state universities in a number of countries. If you read in Russian, read the book by astronaut S. Zhukov "Become an astronaut!". There is even an official protocol about the results of socionic forecasting of the work of the space crew in training for survival. Http://www.epizodyspace.ru/bibl/jukov-s/jukov-stat-2011.pdf --Sounderk (talk) 12:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, socionics is effective in space crew training and psychoanalysis is effective in the therapy of neuroses. And people somehow withdraw from trying to force others to view psychoanalysis as science. It works and I'm sure that socionics works for some problems. So why don't you accept that there are serious facts excluding socionics from science, or at least moving it to the borders of it? It can be non-scientific and still useful. Just because some articles are on google scholar it does not mean they are scientific. If you do science, you do everything to disprove your hypotheses and not to confirm them. I think that socionics has its merits just like psychoanalysis has, but we should not hide its true image and status.Pancarlos (talk) 05:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• Socionics is devoted to more than 4000 scientific works in peer-reviewed journals. Study them first, and then talk about science. At the moment, you cite only amateur sites and Wikipedia, and not scientific publications, and from this you try to make some strange conclusions. --Sounderk (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The status of socionics as science is disputed. The evidence is given in this page. And such information should be included in the criticism section. You surely are aware that socionics journals are not recognized by the mainstream science community. It is hard to find socionics papers in peer reviewed journals other than those published by Bukalov's institute. I do appreciate the effort of dr Bulalov to make socionics as close to science as possible, but still it is not recognized in the mainstream. Laypeople should be aware of that fact. Maybe the reception in Russia is a bit better but in the west socionics is marginal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pancarlos (talk • contribs) 06:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• • No one disputes the status of socionics from authoritative and professional authors. There are no such works. There are several non-professional authors who even without any reference mention the word "socionics" once in a critical context. It just says that they do not understand anything about this, because this is not their field. Even the author Karol Petrak, to whom you put the link, is an expert in technical sciences, not psychology. And he did not find anything to criticize Socionics other than the article that cites in the review a controversial article from Wikipedia. But the authors of the review of Yarovenko and Chernyaeva do not express their opinion, and even nothing more on this topic is quoted. At the same time, everyone knows that citing Wikipedia in scientific works is an indicator of a very low scientific level of the authors. Even university students are not allowed to refer to Wikipedia in their works. Scientific journals on socionics have long been recognized by the scientific community, they are referred to in several thousand scientific papers and a thousand dissertations in all the humanities. But besides this there are many other publications in other academic journals and collections. Yes, there are a lot of them in Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian, Kazakh, Bulgarian, Romanian and other languages ​​of Eastern Europe. But there is also an English publication of authoritative authors. Some of them are given in the article. If you really want to criticize an object, you have to do it correctly, and not because you just really want to criticize. Therefore, the reference to Yarovenko and Chernyaeva is not correct, it violates Wikipedia rules and must be removed.--Sounderk (talk) 13:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

There is criticism by Bogomaz who is psychophysiologist, Magun -social scientist and philosopher Monastirsky. These are just right professions to comment about science and its issues. There was also criticism by science journalists. Therefore I've added them and removed the articles you wished. I agree with you that they are inappropriate (Pietrak and Iarovenko). Wikipedia must be objective and include all relevant viewpoints. The majority of article praises socionics and the criticism section is just appropriate to include any objectives stated by qualified professionals. Science must be verifiable by independent authorities. Material coming from socionists themselves is not objective in that respect. -- Pancarlos (talk) 10:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 July 2020

Socionics should not be label as "pseudoscientific" since it violates the Wikipedia neutral point of view policy; such an opinion, if controversial (and truly backed up) should be discussed under the section "Criticism", and not included as part of the article preamble, since such allegations are but conjectures shared by the few and have not consented. Socionics leads a 2500+ list of research papers on peer-review journals, with the label "pseudoscientific" possibly inciting the defamation of the theory and its lead researchers. To add on the trouble, the article has been vandalized with irrelevant references for this claim, which were already reviewed and decisively left out of the original article which is written in the Russian language (the language which offers the broadest 25+ years of research papers on the topic), for which such an attempt to use the same invalid information, falls under the category of falsification.

The referred articles that supposedly "support" such claim (1 to 10) need an actual revision since they don't provide any information other than (opinion-based) conjectures regarding socionics; in most of those articles, the word "socionics" being merely mentioned once in the whole paper. No actual argument was provided to support such a claim that socionics should fall under the label "pseudoscience".

Please review the validity of such articles supporting the alleged claims.

2806:10A6:19:5B4A:CDBB:76FE:5E78:D713 (talk) 15:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Suggest specific changes in a "Change X to Y" format. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

It may be of interest that the Russian Wikipedia actually does call it pseudoscience in the lead sentence. [12] Crossroads ^-talk- 21:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

It may be interesting that a protest has already been made to this text in the Russian Wikipedia and the mediator has decided that the preamble should be neutral: "In the definition of the subject of the article (the first sentences of the preamble), no unambiguous conclusion should be made about either the scientific nature or the pseudoscientific nature of the theory (concept). The definition should be written in general words, for example, "Socionics is a concept such and such, created ..." Next, a brief retelling of the text of the article should follow, first touching on the position of supporters and then opponents of socionics in matters of its scientific or unscientific nature.I want to point out that in the preamble, only those opinions are worthy of attention, the authors of which are authoritative sources in the field of psychology, sociology, philosophy ... " [13]--ThesariusQ (talk) 22:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

It is a timeline of consensus breaking. For several years a consensus was in the article. But QuantumBorg[14] made edits [15] are completely identical to the edits of Q Valda in the lead sentence in ru-wiki [16],[17],[18],[19]. Later Q Valda took part in the editing of the Socionics article and restored the QuantumBorg version [20]. The connection between Q Valda and QuantumBorg is obvious. QuantumBorg made these non-consensual edits, and Q Valda defended them in Enwiki. This was the cause of the edit war.--ThesariusQ (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the "mediator" you linked me to at Russian Wikipedia, their comment concludes with, "At the same time, this is not a request for mediators to subscribe to this outcome, but only an offer to borrow the positive experience of other mediation" (Google Translate, emphasis added). There is futher discussion above and below this comment. It does not appear to be any binding decision. In fact, it logically cannot be. If it were, then the Russian article wouldn't say what it says. It clearly isn't decided yet there, or else it was decided that the opening sentence is fine, because the opening sentence is what it is. And crucially, we are not bound by decisions made at Russian Wikipedia. It is of interest only in an advisory sense. I'm not seeing any problem behavior from the QuantumBorg account, whoever it is. It edited once, in isolation. You, on the other hand, are a very suspicious account: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sounderk. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

This is mistake. In the ru-wiki, the mediator wrote: "This result was accepted by me as final, and since I have already adopted 2 expanded preliminary totals and 1 expanded final result, the mediators A.Vajrapani, Divot can revise the result in case of dissatisfaction, Alexander Roumega" [21].--ThesariusQ (talk) 23:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

A suspicious connection between Q Valda and QuantumBorg is now being checked Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Q_Valda. --ThesariusQ (talk) 00:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

In the ru-wiki, the neutral user has already considered and analyzed the sources that were placed by QuantumBorg and Q Valda in the lead sentence to call socionics a pseudoscience. I offer a google translation of this analysis."Here is an analysis of the sources from the definition of socionics in the preamble of the article, given to substantiate the pseudoscientific nature of socionics by the participant Q Valda."Socionics is a pseudoscientific [1] [2] [3] concept of personality types and relationships between them."Analysis of authors and references for use in the article Socionics, preamble, definition of the subject of socionics, related to criticism of socionics for the correspondence of the source to the subject of knowledge (psychology, sociology, philosophy), characteristics of the source (primary, secondary, tertiary), significance, appropriateness of mentioning and location in the sections of the article on the basis of the rules of the Wiki and the decision of the mediator. 1) Mineev V.V. Philosopher - corresponds to the subject. Philosophy textbook - characteristic secondary source. One mention of socionics, there is no definition, characteristics and analysis of the subject - it is insignificant in content. It is appropriate to be in the Socionics article with an arrangement in accordance with low weight, not in the preamble. 2) Sergeev A.G. Journalist - not relevant to the subject. The article on homeopathy is not relevant to the subject. The article is publicistic, does not correspond to the genres of scientific articles, does not correspond to the characteristics of the sources of Wiki. One mention of socionics, there is no definition, characteristics, analysis. The mediator considered it appropriate to take into account the opinion of A.G. Sergeev. in the article and, as follows from the Preliminary Results and Results, to place in the relevant section in the body of the article (possibly: Criticism) not in the preamble, not in the definition. 3) Sokolchik V. N. Philosopher - corresponds to the subject. The article does not correspond to the characteristics of the sources of airspace. One mention of socionics with a brief definition, no characteristics and analysis of the subject - is of little significance in terms of content. It is inappropriate to find one criterion in the Socionics article. 4) Zhilina V.A., Nevelev A. B., Kamaletdinova A. Ya. Philosophers - corresponds to the subject. The article does not correspond to the characteristics of the sources of airspace. One mention of socionics in the remark of Zhilina V.A., no definition, characteristics, analysis - is of little significance in terms of content. It is inappropriate to find one criterion in the Socionics article. 5) Salpagarova L.A., postgraduate student of the Department of Philosophy and Humanities of the North Caucasus State Humanitarian and Technological Academy - does not have an academic degree - does not correspond to the subject Not reliable source. One mention of socionics in graduate work. It is inappropriate to find a significant criterion in the Socionics article. 6) Podymov L, teacher, does not have an academic degree. Not reliable source. Popular science book - does not correspond to the characteristics of the sources of reliable source. It is inappropriate to find in the Socionics article by significant criteria. 7) Volkov E., Ph.D., Philosopher - corresponds to the subject. Conference abstracts - does not correspond to the characteristics of the sources of airspace. One mention of socionics, no definition, characteristics, analysis - is of little significance in terms of content. It is appropriate to be located in the relevant section in the body of the article (possibly: Criticism), not in the preamble, not in the definition. 8) Ivashechkina E. A., Chedzhemov G. A. The authors are a student teacher with no academic degree. Not reliable source. It is inappropriate to find a significant criterion in the Socionics article. 9) Ignatiev V.A. The article describes the use of personal experience of socionics. The original article does not correspond to the characteristics of the sources of the Wiki. Not reliable source. From discussion history - rejected by facilitator. It is inappropriate to find an intermediary in the Socionics article by a significant criterion and decision. 10) Abashkina T. L. Philologist - does not correspond to the subject. Not reliable source. It is inappropriate to be in an article by a significant criterion. Thus, 10 sources were analyzed for their compliance with the possibility of using the article Socionics, in its preamble and in the definition of the subject of socionics. Out of 10 sources, only one meets all the criteria 1) V.V. Mineev. with low weight. None of the sources used considers socionics in essence, does not give definitions, characteristics and analysis of socionics in general, therefore they cannot be used in the preamble and definition of the subject of socionics. The academic degree and education of the authors of 4 references correspond to the subject. According to the characteristics of the source, only 1 (secondary source) meets the criteria of the Wiki. It is appropriate to use, taking into account their weight in the body of the article, the decisions of the mediator, it is possible to single out in the section Criticism, but not in the preamble and not in the definition of the subject of socionics of the 3rd source "[22]--ThesariusQ (talk) 23:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

If this is a binding decision there (and to me it just looks like another carefully selected comment), then why does it still say it's pseudoscience in the lead sentence there? Crossroads ^-talk- 02:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Here is a more complete text of the mediator's solution in the ru-wiki, from which you quoted a small snippet (and to me it just looks like another carefully selected comment). "This result was accepted by me as final, and since I have already adopted 2 detailed preliminary results and 1 detailed final result, the mediators A. Vajrapani, Divot, Alexander Roumega can revise the result in case of dissatisfaction. him the organizational experience of mediation on the "Bashkir-Tatar issue" in terms of the adoption of the final results: "3. Any outcome on request can be recognized as “final” if 2/3 of active intermediaries have signed up to it;In exceptional cases, a pre-arbitration settlement within the framework of mediation may be exhausted: a) the adoption of the final outcome, signed by 2/3 of active mediators <...>, is interpreted as the end of the pre-arbitration settlement and its further challenge is possible only within the framework of the Arbitration Committee"; At the same time, this is not a request for mediators to subscribe to this outcome, but only an offer to borrow the positive experience of other mediation. - Yours faithfully, Helgo13 • (Obs.) 11:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)"[23]. However, the Q Valda has started a procedure to challenge the mediator's decision, so the text in the lead sentence has not yet been changed. But these are procedural issues for delaying the implementation of the mediator's decision. There is no reason to revise it. However, no matter what happens in the ru-wiki, we should follow the rules of Enwiki. And the analysis of the sources that are used to substantiate the "pseudoscientific" nature of socionics showed that they are completely inappropriate for this purpose. You can find a translation of this analysis above. --ThesariusQ (talk) 12:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Second topic. Q Valda and QuantumBorg put the following text in the ru-wiki and Enwiki in the preamble: «Independent authors point to the insufficient empirical validity of socionics both in its basis and in its further development, as well as the practical absence of studies on socionics outside the former USSR.»But there is no such information in the source. This is a complete distortion and original research.On the contrary, in the scientific review by A. Bukalov and O. Karpenko "Socionics as an academic scientific discipline", numerous applications of socionics methods in psychology, pedagogy, humanities, applied use in astronautics, aviation, management and other fields, teaching socionics in 150 universities of Eastern Europe and Central Asia. The development of socionics in different countries of the world is considered separately.” Abstract: The widespread of socionics as a scientific direction is confirmed by that over the last 15 years socionic ideas and methods are used in about 800 dissertations on all sections of the humanities and in a number of technical sciences. The analysis of these of dissertational works on branches and topic is carried out. There are analyzed the academic publications on Socionics. Now socionics is taught in over 150 universities in Russia, Ukraine and countries of European Union» [24]. Therefore, the text that QuantumBorg and Q Valda placed in the preamble of the article on Enwiki deceives, misinforms the reader and even some of the English-language editors of the Wiki. Therefore, such text must not be in the article.--ThesariusQ (talk) 13:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Third Topic. Q Valda and QuantumBorg put the following text in the ru-wiki and Enwiki in the preamble: "In contrast to the generally accepted views in science on age-related variability of the human psyche, socionics postulates the presence of 16 psychological types unchanged throughout life. The existence of personality types is considered by modern science to be extremely controversial.» [25]. But this is a completely original study, because socionics is not considered in the used English-language sources. Moreover, the analysis of this text, made by an independent user in the ru-wiki, showed a distortion and falsification of the meaning and results of the cited article. Here is a google translation of this analysis. “An analysis of the following preamble sentence written by Q Valda: “The existence of personality types remains extremely controversial in modern science [7]”, citing the introduction “In contrast to personality traits, the existence of personality types remains extremely controversial”. However, on the same page, in the second column, the authors of the article refute this statement and write: “However, after developing an alternative cluster approach, we identify four reliable clusters that correspond to statistically significant personality types. The types of personality that we reveal”. Here is the original text and a link: “However, after developing an alternative clustering approach, we identify four robust clusters that correspond to statistically meaningful personality types. The personality types we uncover provide some support for, but extend and refine, the three ARC types” [26] content by Q Valda.Thus, it is obvious that the meaning of the article is distorted by the method of partial use of its content by the user Q Valda. And also the article does not mention socionics, which means it cannot be used in the Wikipedia article on socionics. Thus, Q Valda uses links in the Wikipedia article deliberately distorting the meaning of the source, and the same links with distorted meaning are cited by him in support of challenging the results. I consider this behavior unacceptable in the Wikipedia environment. Thus, the following actions of the participant Q Valda are obvious, deliberately distorting the meaning of the sources cited in the Wikipedia article, using sources that are not related to the subject of the article and reusing them for the “war of edits” and challenging the decisions of the mediator. Note that the statement of the user Q Valda contradicts the meaning of article [44], in which the statement of the problem is presented as the result of the article. The result in the article is directly opposite to Q Valda's presentation, namely: the authors identified four reliable clusters corresponding to statistically significant personality types. Once again, this source does not mention socionics. Putting it in the preamble does not comply with the rules of the Wiki and the decision of the mediator. I will quote the conclusion of the article, which the user Q Valda kept silent about, distorting the content and changing the meaning of the article to the opposite. “To summarize, our study provides compelling evidence, both quantitatively and qualitatively, for the existence of at least four distinct personality types. Although these types overlap in certain aspects with typologies hypothesized previously—even showing similarities with some of the ancient four temperaments by considering only the two dimensions of neuroticism and extraversion — our data-driven approach minimizes the effect of possible confirmation bias and rationalization of ad hoc typological constructs. The size of our data sets (nearly 1,000-fold larger than typical studies and between 0.1% and 1% of the total population of the United States and the United Kingdom, respectively) makes us confident that the identified typology represents a robust structure”. The article also contains graphs showing that the types studied by the authors are stable over time, which was distorted by Q Valda to the opposite value. Thus, the example I gave and the analysis of sources from the preamble of the article Q Valda shows that his retelling distorts the content and changes the meaning of the sources, sources are used that are not related to the subject of socionics, and therefore cannot be used in the article” [27]. --ThesariusQ (talk) 14:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

References

I have a question for all Wiki users: is this evidence enough to understand the significance of the scale of distortion and falsification in QuantumBorg and Q Valda non-consensus edits that have broken the longstanding consensus in the article? --ThesariusQ (talk) 14:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

In cases such as this it is proper to use sources that are not specifically about socionics to make clear what the mainstream views are. To quote WP:Fringe: in an article about the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be made clear. This is about a minority viewpoint regarding personality types, and the majority viewpoint on that should be stated. Now, regarding that paper, [28] WP:PSTS is highly relevant. It states, A source may be considered primary for one statement but secondary for a different one. When that paper reports the result of new research, it's a primary source for that. But when it reviews existing research at the beginning, it's a secondary source. Even though that one study found evidence of types (though notably, discusses socionics nowhere), it also acknowledged that the existence of types in the field of psychology in general is "extremely controversial". And given the fact that science involves many individual studies, that one study is not enough to change that yet. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

1) The use of sources that are not related to the topic is original research, which is prohibited by the rules. 2) Based on what reliable sources do you classify socionics as Fringe theories? Please quote them. 3) I insist on neutrality, caution and correctness in citing sources. As for the article [29] about the existence of psychological types, which does not mention socionics at all, the discussion of the appropriateness of its citation should be conducted on the discussion page of the article Personality types, not Socionics. But even in this case, it is incorrect to quote the formulation of the question, keeping silent about its solution. However, it has nothing to do with the article "Socionics" itself, especially in its preamble. WP:PSTS:“If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here.[i] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article». Socionics does not invent psychological types, but only uses this general psychological scientific approach. Now in the preamble is original research on the existence of psychological types in general. But this is not a subject of socionics, which studies informational processes in the psyche and informational interaction between people. The original research should not be included in the preamble of the article. --ThesariusQ (talk) 12:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you removed it at Personality types as well, with a blatantly false edit summary. This is rather like the situation at Emotional Freedom Techniques - we know that meridians don't exist, and EFT is about tapping on meridians. Does that mean the article cannot state that meridians do not exist based on higher profile sources about, say, acupuncture? Of course not. - MrOllie (talk) 13:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

It is wrong to quote only the beginning. This is deceiving the Wiki readers. It is necessary to quote both the statement of the problem and the result. Or not to quote at all. So I already added a post about the result from the abstract of the article [30]. This will be more correct. But all this does not apply to the topic of socionics.--ThesariusQ (talk) 13:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

We shouldn't carry on the same discussion in two places, so I'll link my reply [31]. - MrOllie (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Secondary Source: Review of experimental evidence for personality types.

At present, and although there evidence about the existence of personality types, there is also controversy regarding the number of types and the configuration of the traits of each type [41,46]. For example, the study of Kövi et al. (2019) [42], which used a sample of 15,529 participants including 23 subsamples from 22 countries and with 16 different languages, proposes the existence of five types of personalities: over-controlled, resilient, under-controlled, reserved, and ordinary. On the other hand, the study of Gerlach et al. (2018) [12], based on the analysis of four large datasets comprising a total of more than 1.5 million participants, identified four types: reserved, self-centered, role model, and average. Regardless of the controversies described above, there are advantages of the personality type approach to the analysis of human behavior. According to Donnellan and Robins (2010) [44], these benefits can be described as follows. First, its high level of abstraction contributes to creating knowledge focusing on the common characteristics of individuals. Second, it shifts attention to how traits are organized and integrated within individuals. Third, it is useful in helping to describe the findings of personality research to the general public. Finally, it serves to propose efficient moderating variables to understand why individuals have different responses to everyday events. In this study, the personality type approach was used based on the traits approach». [32]

.--ThesariusQ (talk) 11:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

So we see that all statements about the non-existence of personality types in the preamble of the article are based on the original research of Wiki users, incorrect citation of sources, and contradict new secondary sources. Therefore, they should not be in the preamble of the article.--ThesariusQ (talk) 11:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

MDPI is a sketchy publisher, likely a predatory one. That does not help your case. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

The article on the experimental detection of personality types according to Scopus is cited by 48 secondary sources, so finding another, more authoritative one is not a problem. This is a secondary new source for Gerlach M. etc. .

A person‐centred approach to personality traits using latent profile analysis (LPA) has gained popularity in recent years (e.g. Daljeet, Bremner, Giammarco, Meyer, & Paunonen, 2017; Ferguson & Hull, 2018; Specht, Luhmann, & Geiser, 2014). A person‐centred approach allows the identification of unobserved subgroups with distinct personality profiles and the study of their impact on other variables of interest (Asendorpf, 2015; Howard & Hoffman, 2018). This approach allows, for example, the identification of different types of personality profiles, as defined by their respective level on neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. These profiles may give a useful representation of the personality structure and capture the nuances in it. It has to be noted that the person‐centred approach is neither worse nor better than any other approach (Howard & Hoffman, 2018). It has its own aim, which may be beneficial to a varying degree, depending on the purpose of the study. The reason we consider it particularly suitable for investigating personality in the current study is that a person‐centred approach helps to derive conceptually useful profiles and understand their relations with other psychological constructs, an aim that can on its own contribute to theory and practice (Woo, Jebb, Tay, & Parrigon, 2018). To date, most of the studies that considered Big Five personality traits using a person‐centred approach by applying cluster analysis have identified three personality profiles. Specifically, they denote resilient (well‐adjusted profile with low scores in neuroticism and average to high scores in the four other traits), undercontrolled (low scores in conscientiousness and agreeableness), and overcontrolled (high scores in neuroticism with low scores in extraversion) personality profile (RUO; Asendorpf, 2015; Rosenström & Jokela, 2017). This RUO typology was then associated with different variables of interest. For instance, Donnellan and Robins (2010) noted that individuals presenting the undercontrolled profile were at risk of developing mental health problems (e.g. depression and anxiety) and behaviour problems (e.g. aggression). On the other hand, resilient individuals reported higher life satisfaction and more frequent positive affect than the other two profiles (Steca, Alessandri, & Caprara, 2010). However, some studies have questioned this three‐type solution (e.g. Herzberg & Roth, 2006) and found slightly different profiles—from three‐type to five‐type solutions—using mainly LPA (e.g. Conte, Heffner, Roesch, & Aasen, 2017; Ferguson & Hull, 2018; Specht et al., 2014). Interestingly, while all these studies found the same well‐adjusted profile (i.e. low scores in neuroticism and average to high scores in the four other traits), they also found other different profiles, each of them often characterized by a combination of socially undesirable personality characteristics such as introversion, neuroticism, unconscientiousness, or disagreeableness. Recently, Gerlach, Farb, Revelle, and Amaral (2018) identified at least four distinct personality profiles—respectively labelled the average type, role model, self‐centred, and reserved—using four large datasets (more than 1.5 million individuals) and applying computational approach to the classic clustering method. Similar to other studies, the two latter profiles were characterized by less socially desirable traits when compared the first two profiles. In sum, whether using cluster analysis or LPA, studies on Big Five personality profiles have systematically pointed out a well‐adjusted profile together with at least one profile presenting socially undesirable personality traits. [33]

Do you disagree that the preamble contains an original study that is not directly related to the topic of the article? --ThesariusQ (talk) 20:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• 1) I don't know who is QuantumBorg.
• 2) "It is a timeline of consensus breaking. For several years a consensus was in the article" — wrong. For example anyone can see my disagreement in archive 2018.
• 3) "In the ru-wiki, the neutral participant has already considered and analyzed the sources" — wrong. ru:Участник:Артемьев Георгий is not "neutral user" and is obviously part of pro-socionics puppet-show — his userpage formatting is the same as indefinitely blocked ru:Участник:Gennadiy Frolov, and as ThesariusQ in en-wiki, with "the weird sub-heading with the username" (after Hemiauchenia)
• 4) Ru-wiki mediator Helgo13 is new to the FRINGE field — he was invited on 3rd June 2020, and socionics is his first conflict there — see ru:Википедия:К посредничеству/Неакадемичность, атеизм и религия/Посредники#Helgo13. And he made many mistakes in his attempt of decision, he had not even noticed that his proposed lead contradicts to the edits of many independent participants with large positive contributions (including one admin) — [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51] --Q Valda (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I think that many users make mistakes at first when they create their page. This is a very weak basis for such claims. However, there are other easily verifiable facts: QuantumBorg transfers Q Valda's edits from the ru-wiki to the en-wiki, and then Q Valda protects them and makes them translate quotes into English. But this is already an irrelevant topic for discussion on this page. Here is a discussion of sources for the definition of socionics and a search for consensus when editing an article. Let's limit ourselves to this. There is a dissenting user who criticizes the mediator decisions in ru-wiki. But the mediator cannot be liked by all parties to the conflict. The mediator Helgo13 in his decision confirmed the observance of the rule of neutrality when writing an article and defining the subject of socionics. After all, this is the main rule of Wiki. Therefore, in en-wiki the question is: will we edit the article according to the rules of the wiki and seek a reasonable consensus, or will we invite a mediator, or will we go to arbitration?--ThesariusQ (talk) 22:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• When users do something unusually equal (e.g. personal attacking or userpage formatting), then they may have difficulties with passing the duck test. --Q Valda (talk) 23:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• Unfortunately, it is not a discussion about sources. As we already know, supporters cannot confirm by RS the following basic socionics statements : 1) the existence of exactly 16 socionic types, 2) their innate and unchangeable nature throughout life, 3) dichotomy of personality traits. Without such sources socionics is obvious pseudoscience. --Q Valda (talk) 23:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

These are very original claims to socionics. Are they in reliable sources? --ThesariusQ (talk) 23:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

You don't know the core of socionics? --Q Valda (talk) 08:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Claims for any theory should be contained in the reliable sources. If there are no such reliable sources, then these are personal claims of an individual user.--ThesariusQ (talk) 09:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone is interested in a discussion with a possilikely puppet (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sounderk) who do not want to demonstrate knowledge of reliable sources about the core of the theory, when its wiki-page falls under the regulation of pseudoscience (WP:ARBPS) — [52]. --Q Valda (talk) 11:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't sidetrack the discussion. You do not have reliable sources confirming your claims to socionics.--ThesariusQ (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

My claims? No, they are claims from pseudoscientific sources (I cannot call them reliable though) that contain all of the above statements, e.g. Пятнадцать признаков дихотомии в типологии личности (in russian) = Fifteen signs of a dichotomy in the personality typology by Augustinavičiūtė & Reinin. --Q Valda (talk) 14:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

You call these theoretical views of socionics pseudoscientific. And nobody else. In what authoritative sources are these provisions of socionics called pseudoscientific? You could not provide them because they are not there.--ThesariusQ (talk) 15:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Like any other pseudoscience supporter, you go from one incorrect statement to another, only causing the other person to waste time. Now it is my turn to ask — and where is the evidence for these "theoretical views"? --Q Valda (talk) 17:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

This theory has long been accepted by the scientific community. There are dozens of links about this in the article itself. There are no sources criticizing the provisions of this theory. Therefore, you cannot present them. And if there are no such sources, then the opinion about the pseudoscientific nature of the theory is the original research of the user, even if he insists on it.--ThesariusQ (talk) 19:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• This theory has long been accepted by the scientific community — wrong. It was highly criticized from the very beginning, after Augustinavičiūtė's article — Informacinio metabolizmo modelis. Mokslas ir technika Nr.4, Vilnius, 1980. — So the author chose the usual way for pseudoscience to promote her ideas outside the scientific field. --Q Valda (talk) 21:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

It is wrong. Mokslas ir technika is a peer-reviewed scientific journal and Augustinavichiute's article has received the required review. Augustinavichute had a number of scientific publications in the 1980s and has been cited by other authors.--ThesariusQ (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're missed my point. Anyway, please give us a links to a number of published Augustinavičiūtė's articles on socionics in 1980s. It is well known that she was engaged in self-publishing. --Q Valda (talk) 03:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• There are dozens of links about this in the article itself — wrong. Socionics sources that are present in the article are not reliable in the psychology field. Most of them like 'Socionics, Mentology and Personality Psychology' journal are self-published (e.g. by pseudoscientist Bukalov) and not included in Web of Science or Scopus. --Q Valda (talk) 21:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

It is wrong. There are hundreds of independent sources. Some of them are cited in the article. But the journal "Socionics, Mentology and Personality Psychology" is a scientific peer-reviewed journal that has been published since 1994. Its editor-in-chief A. Bukalov is in 8th place in citation among 7214 scientists of Ukraine in the bibliometrics of Ukrainian science in the section "Social Sciences, Human Resources & Organizations" [53], and in 177th place among all 52,690 scientists of Ukraine [54]. His h-index is 30, the number of citations of his works is 3892: [55]. He is also the editor-in-chief of the peer-reviewed journals "Management and Personnel: Management Psychology, Socionics and Sociology" [56] and "Psychology and Socionics of Interpersonal Relationships". [57] These journals are indexed in the Russian Science Citation Index [58], [59], [60], WorldCat, Google Scholar, and other multilingual databases. Moreover, Google Scholar contains 3000 scientific sources in English [61], 6870 scientific academic sources on socionics in Russian and other languages [62]. The Stanford University Research Library contains over 1.600 peer-reviewed journal sources [63]. Of course, there are no articles on the topic of socionics as a pseudoscience in the scientific library of Stanford University [64] (Scholarly & peer-reviewed only).--ThesariusQ (talk) 21:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Hundreds independent sources? But anyone can see just a few independent sources with just a few words about socionics each. Among them there is not a single reliable source in the field of differential psychology. As we already understand, for more than 40 years of the existence of socionics, not a single source with evidence of its theory has appeared. But during this time a lot of sellers of socionic typing have bred. --Q Valda (talk) 03:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

He has written a lot a papers, sure. But they seem to mostly be self-published in his own journals. How many of those cites are him citing other of his papers, or a small set of pseudoscientists citing each other? That's not evidence of anything but a long running walled garden. - MrOllie (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

About "there are no articles on the topic of socionics as a pseudoscience in the scientific library of Stanford University": if you enter "socionics pseudoscience" instead of "socionics pseudosciense", there is such an article. Wikisaurus (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Blutner R.; Hochnadel E. (2010). "Two qubits for C.G. Jung's theory of personality" (PDF). Cognitive Systems Research. 11 (3): 243–259. doi:10.1016/j.cogsys.2009.12.002 [65]"Socionics was developed in the 1970s and 1980s mainly by the Lithuanian researcher Ausˇra Augustinavicˇiute. The name 'socionics' is derived from the word 'society, since Augustinavicˇiute believed that each personality type has a distinct purpose in society, which can be described and explained by socionics. The system of socionics is in several respects similar to the MBTI; however, whereas the latter is dominantly used in the USA and Western Europe, the former is mainly used in Russia and Eastern Europe. For more information, the reader is referred to the website of the International Institute of Socionics and to several scientific journals edited by this institution [66]. Despite of several similarities there are also important differences. For instance, the MBTI is based on questionnaires with so-called forced-choice questions. Forced choice means that the individual has to choose only one of two possible answers to each question. Obviously, such tests are self-referential. That means they are based on judgments of persons about themselves. Socionics rejects the use of such questionnaires and is based on interviews and direct observation of certain aspects of human behavior instead. However, if personality tests are well constructed and their questions are answered properly, we expect results that often make sense. For that reason, we do not reject test questions principally, but we have to take into account their self-referential character. Another difference relates to the fact that socionics tries to understand Jung's intuitive system and to provide a deeper explanation for it, mainly in terms of informational metabolism (Kepinski & PZWL, 1972). Further, socionics is not so much a theory of personalities per se, but much more a theory of type relations providing an analysis of the relationships that arise as a consequence of the interaction of people with different personalities".--ThesariusQ (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Blutner & Hochnadel seem like didn't know that socionic tests are irreproducible. The same person can be assigned to 16 different types by 16 different typers. --Q Valda (talk) 03:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

But Q Valda and QuantumBorg put the following text in the ru-wiki and Enwiki in the preamble: «Independent authors point to the insufficient empirical validity of socionics both in its basis and in its further development, as well as the practical absence of studies on socionics outside the former USSR.»But there is no such information in the source. This is a complete distortion and original research.On the contrary, in the scientific review by A. Bukalov and O. Karpenko "Socionics as an academic scientific discipline", numerous applications of socionics methods in psychology, pedagogy, humanities, applied use in astronautics, aviation, management and other fields, teaching socionics in 150 universities of Eastern Europe and Central Asia. The development of socionics in different countries of the world is considered separately.” Abstract: The widespread of socionics as a scientific direction is confirmed by that over the last 15 years socionic ideas and methods are used in about 800 dissertations on all sections of the humanities and in a number of technical sciences. The analysis of these of dissertational works on branches and topic is carried out. There are analyzed the academic publications on Socionics. Now socionics is taught in over 150 universities in Russia, Ukraine and countries of European Union» [67]--ThesariusQ (talk) 23:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

References

• There are no sources criticizing the provisions of this theory — wrong. Anyone can find the appropriate criticism in sources about e.g. analogous MBTI theory. --Q Valda (talk) 21:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

It is wrong. Socionics is very different from MBTI. She studies the processes of information processing in the psyche and interpersonal relationships. And MBTI is just a typology.--ThesariusQ (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's different. So different that it looks more like fortune-telling rather than science. --Q Valda (talk) 03:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• And if there are no such sources, then the opinion about the pseudoscientific nature of the theory is the original research of the user — wrong again. There are very reliable sources that call it pseudoscience. --Q Valda (talk) 21:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

It is wrong. You only have 10 tendentious sources out of the existing 6800. There are no other critical sources. Therefore, there is a big manipulation and violation of the WP:RSUW, WP:POV, WP:RS.--ThesariusQ (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Of course, many supporters of pseudoscience consider tendentious, for example, the materials of the special Commission of the Russian Academy of Sciences. But this commission is exactly authorized to conduct public criticism of pseudoscience. --Q Valda (talk) 03:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Those 6800 are by the socionics walled garden, aren't they? How many sources that are not by socionics practitioners treat socionics as a mainstream science? How many psychology and sociology textbooks or review papers even acknowledge socionics? Crossroads ^-talk- 03:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

OK. There are many independent reliable sources.--ThesariusQ (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Independent reliable sources about socionics as a science or scientific theory

Extended content

1. Tertiary reliable source: MILITARY-PSYCHOLOGICAL DICTIONARY-REFERENCE Textbook Under the general editorship of Doctor of Psychology, Professor, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Education Zinchenko Yu.P.[68], Moscow 2010. Authors: L.А. Kandybovich, Doctor of Psychology, Professor; S.L. Kandybovich, Doctor of Psychology, Professor[69]; A.G. Karayani, Doctor of Psychology,Professor[70]; I.V. Syromyatnikov, Doctor of Psychology, Professor. SOCIONICS is a model for improving society, in which for each individual, representing a certain psychological type, there is a place in society, in social activity. S. - one of the theories of psychological types, which is at the intersection of psychology, sociology, computer science. S. is based on the model of CG Jung - a Swiss psychiatrist, psychologist. According to Jung's "Psychological Types", 1921, etc.), a person cannot be both an extrovert and an introvert. His psyche resembles a magnet formed from two poles. The poles of a magnet are always together, and a person is asymmetric, its second pole is another person. The relationship between two types, when the partners have the necessary additional qualities, are called complement relations, and the complement process itself is called dualization. For example, marriage is the right not only to a sexual partner, but also to psychic complement and continuation of one's personality in another, to the dualization of one's psyche. Different relationships between people in the same social conditions can only be explained by the psychological structures of the individuals in contact. These structures can be congenital or acquired, but must be sufficiently stable. With their help, you can explain why some people develop with some people, and with others - different relationships. A. Augustinavichiute, based on the work of Jung, proposed a classification of people directly related to the processes of information exchange in society. She identified 16 personality types, including: logician and ethic, extrovert and introvert, sensory and intuitive, rationalist and irrationalist, etc. S. helps to determine the type of a person's personality, to build interaction and communication with him, to form family, industrial and leisure collectives[71]. 2. Tertiary reliable source: V.G. Krysko, Doctor of Psychology, Professor. Dictionary of Social Psychology. - SPb.: Peter, 2003 .-- 416 p. - ISBN 5-314-00021-0 SOCIONICS is a science that draws methodology from sociology, informatics and psychology and is focused on improving society, in which for each individual belonging to a certain psychological type there is a place in socially useful activity. Commentary: These are a tertiary reliable sources with a lot of weight. Its authors are social psychologists. Obviously, these tertiary sources are much more significant than those sources that are now placed in the preamble of the article, written by non-professionals in the field of psychology or sociology and mentioning the word "socionics" only once in the entire article.--ThesariusQ (talk) 16:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC) 3. Tertiary reliable source: Pedagogical Dictionary: For students higher and secondary pedagogical educational institutions. Kodzhaspirova G.M.,Doctor of Pedagogy, Professor, Kodzhaspirov A.Yu., Ph.D in Psychology - M .: I; M .: Publishing Center "Academy", 2005. SOCIONICS -scientific approach, developing such a model of society, in a cut for each individual representing a certain psychol. type, there is a corresponding place in society and social. activities; the latest theory of psychol. types and interpersonal relationships, located at the intersection of psychology, sociology and informatics. In pedagogy, the development of the organization of the educational process on the basis of Socionics appeared.[72] 4. Tertiary reliable source: Dictionary of Foreign Words - Prof. Komlev N.G., 2006. SOCIONICS -[<lat. socialis - public + (tech) nickname)] - the science of interpersonal relationships. Socionics recognizes 16 types of psychological relationships between individuals (INDIVIDUAL) and the presence of special paired types - duals. Duals have the adaptive ability to establish conflict-free ties with each other. Purpose with. optimize relationships between people. 5. Tertiary reliable source: Terminological dictionary of the librarian on social and economic topics. - St. Petersburg: Russian National Library. 2011. Socionics - the object of its study is the typology of people. It can be used in psychotherapy and psychocorrection. Models relationships between people, predicts human behavior in communication. 6. Tertiary reliable sources: a) Sharkov F.I., Doctor of Sociological Sciences, Professor. Communicology. Encyclopedic dictionary reference. Textbook. allowance. - M.: ITK "Dashkov and K", 2009. - 766 p. - ISBN 978-5-394-00101-7. Recommended as a teaching aid for training bachelors and masters in advertising and public relations. b)Communicology: the basics of communication theory. Sharkov F.I., 2012, "ITK" Dashkov and K ° ", 2012 Socionics is a branch of knowledge that, with the help of formal-logical and mathematical apparatus, studies information processes occurring in society.[73] 7. a) Fundamentals of Philosophy Study Guide. Author: Kalmykov V.N., Doctor of Philosophy, Professor, - 2nd ed., Revised. and add. - Minsk: Higher school, 2003 .-- 541 p. Since the 70s. XX century. Socionics is developing - the science of human capabilities and human relationships. Depending on the personality types ("Dumas", "Hugo", "Balzac", "Don Quixote", "Napoleon", "Yesenin", "Zhukov", etc.), the relationship between people develops in different ways - in the range from comfort to conflict. In socionics, behind largely conventional, symbolic names, a kind of pseudonyms, concrete images are hidden. For example, the Zhukov type has strong managerial and organizational skills. Personalities of the "Dumas" type are predominantly disposed to receive pleasure, perceive the world around them through a sense of comfort, are able to create it in any conditions. Representatives of the "Hugo" type are ingenuous and frank in expressing their feelings, tend to influence others - through money, strength and the exercise of power. A person like "Balzac" is an intellectual, pragmatist, somewhat arrogant, does not like to obey, but he is not inclined to subjugate others, knows how to avoid useless work. People like "Napoleon" know how to manipulate the feelings of other people, are energetic, have a developed willpower, know how to work with people. Personalities like "Don Quixote" are romantic, dreamy, able to understand people well, are inclined to comprehend the essence of things and ideas, to discoveries, to develop new theories. The relationship between people is divided into dual (partners complement each other, which is especially important in marriage), mirror (the left functions of one partner are right for the other, which creates good conditions for joint work) and activating (partners are activated when communicating with each other). Having mastered the "secrets" of socionics, you can avoid many unpleasant collisions in relationships between people (for example, when choosing a manager or subordinate at work, when choosing a partner in marriage, for entertainment and spending time together, etc.). Fundamentals of Philosophy Study guide. - 2nd ed., Rev. and add. - Minsk: Higher school, 2003 .-- 541 p. b) Philosophy; Ministry of Education of the Republic of Belarus, Gom. state un-t them. F. Skaryna. - 4th ed., Rev. and add. - Gomel: GSU im. F. Skaryna, 2015 - 354 pp. Author: Kalmykov V.N., Doctor of Philosophy, Professor. In addition to social science, social and psychological types of personality are distinguished. Even Hippocrates divided people into choleric, sanguine, phlegmatic and melancholic. In the philosophical and psychological literature, the division of people into introverts and extroverts has become widespread. An introvert is focused on his inner world, he often has an analytical perception of the world. The extrovert is aimed at the outside world, its syntheticity. Since the 70s. XX century. socionics is developing - the science of human capabilities and the relationship of people. Conditional, symbolic names hide specific images...[74] Comments: These are university textbooks on philosophy in two versions. Unlike Mineev's book, in which socionics is mentioned only once, and the link to which is placed in the definition of the subject of socionics in the preamble of the article, these textbooks consider socionics as a new science in much more detail. Therefore, the weight of this textbook as an reliable source is much higher than the weight of Mineev's book.--ThesariusQ (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC) 8. Betty Lou Leaver, Madeline Ehrman, Boris Shekhtman: Achieving Success in Second Language Acquisition. – Cambridge University Press, 2005. – 280 p. – ISBN 052154663X, 9780521546638. Authors: Betty Lou Leaver, Associate Dean and Chief Academic Officer for New York Institute of Technology at Jordan University for Science and Technology. Madeline Ehrman, Director of Research, Evaluation, Development at the Foreign Service Institute, US. Boris Shekhtman is Operational Director of the Coalition of Distinguished Language Centers, and President of the Specialized Language Training Center in Rockville, Maryland., МD. P.118: Like the MBTI, socionics is a sixteen-type derivative of Jung's work. Unlike the MBTI, the socionics model, which is in wide use in Eastern and Western Europe, as well as throughout Eurasia, Central Asia, and the Baltic nations, strives to stay very close to the original descriptions and type labels suggested by Jung. . 9. Prof. Fink G. and Prof. Mayrhofer W. Cross-cultural competence and management – setting the stage // European J. Cross-Cultural Competence and Management. - 2009. - Vol. 1. - No. 1. - Pp. Personality profiling encompasses numerous models that arise from personality trait theory. In the context of this article,four models deserve special attention due to their importance in personality research and/or their appropriateness for the topic: Socionics (founded in the 1970s by Ausra Augustinavichiute, e.g., Augustinavichiute, 1994, 1998); cybernetic mindscape theory (Maruyama, 1980; Boje, 2004); the five factor model (FFM), commonly called the ‘big five’ personality trait model (Costa and McCrae, 1992); the personality type theory of the Myers-Briggs type inventory (MBTI, see McKenna et al., 2002). These models are independent and unrelated, though Boje (2004) made an attempt to connect MBTI and mindscape theory.[75] . 10. Alexandrova N.Kh., Boyadzhieva N., Sapundzhieva K., Kolarova Ts.D. Socionics in the sphere of social science - Sofia: Univ. ed. St. Kliment Ohridski, 2004 .-- 149 p. Authors: Alexandrova N.Kh. - Doctor of Psychological Sciences, Professor, Boyadzhieva N. - Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, Sapundzhieva K.V. - Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, Professor, Kolarova - Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, Professor. They teach at the Sofia University “St. Кliment Ohridski "(Bulgaria). Socionics is a reliable tool for the optimization and development of human personality, for the study of their professional competence. In essence, socionics orients a person in his life, suggests how to realize his capabilities, how to become a professional or find a job that meets his opinions and wishes. Depending on the type, it is possible to determine the professional inclinations of a person and his abilities - even those for the manifestation of which there was no occasion. The special appeal of socionics is that its concepts can be extracted and applied in everything related to human activity. In this case, it will optimize the social and pedagogical work and the training of students - social teachers.[76] Commentary: on this and other textbooks socionics is taught at universities in Bulgaria.--ThesariusQ (talk) 18:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC) 11. Gosheva M.I. Socionics as a tool in counseling high school students // e-Education. - 2010. - № 37. - P.47-56 Socionics is a science that studies the exchange of information between man and the outside world, ie how people perceive, process and export information. At its core, socionics is a new approach to personality and analysis of relationships between people; it is an opportunity to fully and comprehensively understand others and yourself, to accept others and yourself, as well as the ability to create and establish the necessary interaction with different people. 12. M. Laszlo-Kutiuk The Key to Fiction. - Bucharest: Mustang, 2002. — 291p. - ISBN - 973-99400-6-4. Author: Professor at the University of Bucharest (Romania). Socionics can be a great tool for understanding the skills of writers, the typology of the characters of their works. At the same time, literature can become a material for the further development of socionics itself as an intermediate science between psychology and sociology . 13. László-Kuţiuk M. Ghid de autocunoasţere. Elemente de socionică. – Bucureşti, 2000. ISBN 973-97141-5-3. Author: Professor at the University of Bucharest (Romania). 14. Surtaeva N. N., Ivanova O. N. Educational socionics and problems of conflict interactions. SPb. IOV RAO, 2002 .-- 135 p. ISBN 5-258-00021-4. Authors: Surtaeva N.N., Doctor of Pedagogy, Professor. Ivanova O. A., Doctor of Pedagogy, Professor. 15. Prof. Blutner R.; Hochnadel E. (2010). Two qubits for C.G. Jung's theory of personality (PDF). Cognitive Systems Research. 11 (3): 243–259. doi:10.1016/j.cogsys.2009.12.002 [77] Socionics was developed in the 1970s and 1980s mainly by the Lithuanian researcher Ausˇra Augustinavicˇiute. The name 'socionics' is derived from the word 'society, since Augustinavicˇiute believed that each personality type has a distinct purpose in society, which can be described and explained by socionics. The system of socionics is in several respects similar to the MBTI; however, whereas the latter is dominantly used in the USA and Western Europe, the former is mainly used in Russia and Eastern Europe. For more information, the reader is referred to the website of the International Institute of Socionics and to several scientific journals edited by this institution [78]. Despite of several similarities there are also important differences. For instance, the MBTI is based on questionnaires with so-called forced-choice questions. Forced choice means that the individual has to choose only one of two possible answers to each question. Obviously, such tests are self-referential. That means they are based on judgments of persons about themselves. Socionics rejects the use of such questionnaires and is based on interviews and direct observation of certain aspects of human behavior instead. However, if personality tests are well constructed and their questions are answered properly, we expect results that often make sense. For that reason, we do not reject test questions principally, but we have to take into account their self-referential character. Another difference relates to the fact that socionics tries to understand Jung's intuitive system and to provide a deeper explanation for it, mainly in terms of informational metabolism (Kepinski & PZWL, 1972). Further, socionics is not so much a theory of personalities per se, but much more a theory of type relations providing an analysis of the relationships that arise as a consequence of the interaction of people with different personalities 16. Mathematical psychology: V.Yu. Krylov. - Institute of Psychology Russian Academy of Sciences [79], 2010 .-- 503 p. - ISBN 978-5-9270-0115-5 You can consider other theories, for example, socionics, and the corresponding subject models corresponding to the J-model and A-model of socionics . 17. Prof. Spirin L.F., Dr. Rumyantseva E.A., Rumyantseva T.A. Socionics - for teachers and parents. (How to find mutual understanding, harmony, friendship). / Ed. Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences M. I. Rozhkov. -M .: International Pedagogical Academy, 1999. - Spirin L.F. Professor, Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, Professor; full member of the International Pedagogical Academy, full member of the Academy of Pedagogical and Social Sciences, academician of the Baltic Pedagogical Academy, corresponding member of the International Academy of Psychological Sciences. / Reviewers: V. V. Novikov, Doctor of Psychology, Professor; P.V. Konanikhin, Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, Professor, Academician of NPA. Socionics is also defined as the science of stable types of individuals and the patterns of relationships between them. Her conclusions are based on the analysis of information metabolism (exchange) between people, which, in particular, occurs in any pedagogical system and is one of the main aspects of its work . 18. Svetlana Ivanova, PhD in Education, senior researcher laboratory of innovatics in pedagogical education, Institute of educational management of Russian Science Academy, the branch in St. Petersburg PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF INNOVATIONS IN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS // MODERN EUROPEAN RESEARCHES, №6, 2015. As it is noted by A.V. Bukalov and O.B. Karpenko, wide circulation of socionics as scientific direction is confirmed by that for the last 15 years socionics ideas and methods are used approximately in 800 theses according to all sections of the humanities and in a number of technical sciences. Now socionics is taught in more than 150 universities of Russia, Ukraine, the CIS countries and countries of the European Union. [80] . 19. Sociology. 5th ed., Textbook. 2016. Authors: Alexander Gribakin, Doctor of Philosophy, Professor, Irina Loginova, Doctor of Philosophy, Valery Glazyrin, Professor, Doctor of Sociological Sciences, Olga Berdyugina, Doctor of Philosophy, Andrey Masleev, Doctor of Philosophy, Evgeny Konovkin, Doctor of Philosophy, Elvira Gribakina, Natalia Gulina, Doctor of Philosophy, Professor. p. 278: The identification of types in socionics - the science of types of people and their relationships - is based on these typological differences. Socionics studies a person's perception of information about the environment, as well as information interaction between people, their psychological compatibility. In the basic version, 16 psychological types are distinguished.[81] 20. Socionics and Sociometry Diagnosting of Air Navigation System's Operator. Prof. Yuliya Sikirda (National Aviation University, Ukraine) and Prof. Tetiana Shmelova (National Aviation University, Ukraine) Source Title: Socio-Technical Decision Support in Air Navigation Systems: Emerging Research and Opportunities. Copyright: © 2018 Abstract. In this chapter, the authors have researched the operator behavioral activities in Air Navigation System (ANS) as a Socio-Technical System (STS). They have identified personality types of aviation professionals and their interactions during the performance of professional tasks in the small group on the example of the controllers' team with the system approach. The authors have used socionics methods for determining the professional type of the operator namely energy consumption for the choice of profession and sociometry methods to determine the compatibility of operators in the group etc. They have presented the results of correlation analysis of socionics and sociometry indicators in ANS. Problems Of Joint Activity Of Air Navigation Systems’ Operators Statistics in recent decades point to the dominant role of human factor influence on the total number of aviation accidents (ACs), which is about 80% (Leychenko, Malishevskiy & Mikhalic, 2006; Shvets & Alekseev, 2008). 7% ACs reasons, arising from the fault of the human factor, are violations of the interaction between the flight crew (Leychenko, Malishevskiy & Mikhalic, 2006). A significant number of incidents and cases of aircraft damage on earth (to 34%) are also associated with impaired interaction between different groups of aviation professionals who provide flights (Leychenko, Malishevskiy & Mikhalic, 2006). The causes of most aviation accidents associated with the psychology of aviation specialists and require proper consideration. Currently completing flight crew and other aviation professionals groups is not regulating by documents. Joint activity plays an important role during work flight crew and controllers’ team. Features of the interaction in groups of aviation specialists the most evident in flight emergencies. We know what kind of professional activity affects the psychological and social personality type (Makarov, Nidziy & Shishkin, 2000). Despite the many techniques to assess and improve the performance of flight personnel are practically not using Sociometry and Socionics approaches for completing the flight crews, controllers’ teams and other aviation specialists’ groups (Leychenko, Malishevskiy & Mikhalic, 2006). There are famous conceptual models of the human factor SHEL (Software, Hardware, Environment, Liveware) (Fundamental Human Factors Concepts, 2002) and Reason’s Swiss Cheese Model (Safety Management Manual (SMM), 2013) according to which aviation accidents are the result of a combination of active and latent errors. At the moment, the sates of the influence of the human factor. Classical socionics is based on approach, proposed C. Jung (1875-1961) – Swiss psychiatrist and founder of analytical psychology. In his work “Psychological Types” he suggested typology of characters based on four mental functions inherent in man: thinking, emotions, feelings, intuition (Jung, 2006). The test of Catherine Briggs and Isabel Myers, developed in 1959, “Myers-Briggs Type Indicator” (MBTI) (Quenk, 2009; Myers-Briggs & Myers, 2012), except C. Jung psychological dichotomies (PD) “extraversion-introversion”, “logic-ethics”, “sensing-intuition” uses PD “decision-perception” that is “the way of their interaction with the environment” (Leychenko, Malishevskiy & Mikhalic, 2006). Lithuania psychologist A. Augustinavichiute concluded that the type is innate mental structure that defines a particular type of information exchange with personality environment (Augustinavichiute, 2008). A person is considered as an information system that has specific communication channels with their characteristic limitations. Thus, in terms of socionics, human personality is a complex system, which sells itself on four levels of operation: biological (human-nature), psychological (man-man), social (human-society) and information (man-noosphere) (Leychenko, Malishevskiy & Mikhalic, 2006; Jung, 2006; Augustinavichiute, 2008; Jung, Franz, Joseph, Jacobi & Jaffe, 2013). [82] 21. Volkov Yu.G., Mostovaya I.V. Sociology: a textbook for universities. Ed. prof. V.I.Dobrenkova. - M .: Gardarika, 1998 .-- 244 p. Recommended by the Ministry general and vocational education Russian Federation as a textbook.For university students,MOSCOW,1998, ISBN 5-7762-0041-5 UDC316 (075.8)BBK 60.5 B67. Reviewers:Doctor of Sociological Sciences, Professor N.S. Sleptsov, Doctor of Philosophical Sciences, Professor V. T. Lisovsky It is psychological concepts that are often borrowed in real microsociological research. A sociologist is not satisfied with the fact that a person fulfills a role, he studies how a person adapts to a role, how he masters it. Macrosociology of personality does not give To fill this gap, microsociologists turn to psychological theories, use tests and socio-psychological interpretations.Thus, differential psychological theories and psychostatistics (the founder of the direction G. Allport) allow, based on the study of many individual parameters, to find common and even socially typical: attitudes (life principles), types (innate typical traits), temperaments (indelible characteristics of "reactivity"), intro-extraversion (isolation and sociability of a person). Gradually work with thousands of parameters and combining them into more general "nests" led to the creation of test suites to identify psycho- and sociotypes of personality. In this vein, a new system of knowledge has emerged - socionics and more rigorous ways of formalization in the study of attitudes and behavior of people have appeared. [83] 22. V.A. Kononov. WHY SOCIOLOGY SOCIONICS? // Sociology in the modern world: science, education, creativity. - 2009. - No. 1. - R. 116-120. Information about the author: Ph.D., Associate Professor We proceed from the assumption that the main, fundamental the provisions of socionics are known to the interested reader, therefore they are not prescribed and not explained, but they are addressed as needs ... Socionics is needed not only by sociology, but also to science as a whole as a universal methodological foundations as a theory of the anthropic principle, conceptualized self-awareness of the subject of cognition, and social cognition - in the first place ... Next. The knowledge accumulated by socionics can be claimed by the sociology of personality ... From the sociology of personality, let us turn to a small group with its dynamics mikoy. Socionic division of individuals into four quadras of four types in each can be compared with the division of elements in D.I. Mendeleev into separate groups, with a set of properties characteristic of each group, set by the structure of the same particles... What can the socionics of sociology give in terms of studying social development? As a first approximation, relying on the law of quadra rotation, according to which, according to A.V. Bukalov, “the development of an idea, an initiative, a historical or cultural-social phenomenon from its inception to degeneration, decline and death consists of four stages that replace each other", the possibility of foreseeing that will allow you to more effectively manage social processes.These are some areas of sociological knowledge (unavoidable well, not all), where it seems promising to use knowledge accumulated by socionics.[84], [85] 23. Prof. V.V. Kryzhko Theory and practice of management in education. - M .: Education of Ukraine, 2005. - Reviewers: N.L. Kolominsky, Doctor of Psychology, Professor; M.I. Prikhodko, Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, Professor. Socionics. Among the many sciences that describe certain aspects personality psychology, socionics, which emerged in the late 70's - early 80's of the twentieth century., stands out consistently and holistically consideration of the human psyche and behavior. Socionics a little more than 20 years, but it is difficult to name all areas of its application. Socionics is possible use in the family, in the team, in self-management, for creating a psychological climate in the formation of pedagogical teams. What is socionics? Socionics is a science that considers people as carriers of certain types of information metabolism, interacting with each other on the basis of objective social laws.[86] 24. MAPPING PERSONALITIES: THE BRAND AND CONSUMER By Imran Khan. Submitted to Mudra Institute of Communications, Ahmedabad. Dissertation Supervisor Prof. Atul Tandon Director, MICA Mudra Institute of Communications, Ahmedabad Page 1 of 103 February 2006 2.4 SOCIONICS. Socionics is a relatively recent and developing branch of Psychology, based on:- Carl Jung’s work on Psychological Types,- Sigmund Freud’s Theory of the Conscious and Subconscious,- Antoni Kepinski’s Theory of Information Metabolism. Aushra Augustinavichute is credited as the founder of this branch. The Lithuanian researcher in the late 1970s combined different knowledge bases of the human psyche into one structural theory and then a model. Socionics finally took form in the 1980s. It defines people’s characters through the fundamental belief that each is an accumulation of a ‘set of blocks’ called “psychological functions”. Differing behaviour types and character types are thus products of different ways of chaining and combining these functions, resulting in different ways of accepting and producing information. This structured approach to the functioning of the human psyche went beyond the basic psychological types. Socionics scores above theories in accurately predicting and anticipating the development of human relationships. [87] 25. Training of aviation personnel in the field of the human factor: interuniversity collection of scientific papers / [otv. ed. G.V. Kovalenko]. - SPb. : Acad. citizen aviation, 2004. - Recommendations: Ministry of Transport of the Russian Federation, Federal Air Transport Agency FGOU VPO "Academic Civil Aviation" The models of socionics and actual problems of certification and audit are investigated. The issues of testing reliability are considered. 26. Prof. V.H. Arutyunov, Prof. V.M. Mishin, Prof. V.M. Svintsitsky. Methodology of socio-economic cognition: Textbook. manual. - К .: КНЕУ, 2005. - 353 с. - ISBN 966–574–000–0 Socionics emerged in the 70's - early 80's of the twentieth century. Since its inception, this scientific discipline is marked by a consistent and holistic examination of the human psyche and behavior. It is difficult to list all areas of its application. Knowledge of socionics can be used to harmonize family and marriage relationships, stabilize relations in the team, self-government, the formation of creative groups and more. In other words, the laws of socionics can be seen in all areas of human activity or the organization of groups, from the smallest - the type of family - to society as a whole. These patterns are often observed in politics, science and culture.[88] 27. Horwood J., Maw A. Theatre Teams Assembled Using Personality Profiles Can Improve Predicted Teamworking Scores // Bulletin of The Royal College of Surgeons of England. - 2012. - Vol. 94. - No 3. - Pp. 1-6\ Socionics is a relatively new science developed and popularised by Ausra Augustinaviciute in the 1970s. Augustinaviciute and her colleagues worked with Carl Jung’s personality typologies to develop personalitybased relationship profiles. It was found that the nature and development of interpersonal relationships (both professional and personal) are far from random. Instead, they are based on how well suited each individual’s psychological profiles are to one another, allowing Augustinaviciute to develop 16 ‘socionic types’ (Table 2) predicting and describing the interpersonal relationships between any combination of Jung’s personality types. Augustinaviciute’s work was published in the Russian literature but translations of her work and a wealth of further information regarding the development and application of socionics can be found on a number of websites and in books.[89]

--ThesariusQ (talk) 17:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

They are sometimes independent, but not reliable sources on the scientific status of socionics. Much of what is shown here is only a consequence of the well-known fact of the low level of social science in the post-Soviet countries. Here it is relatively easy to write papers on pseudoscientific topics and there are very few people who want to criticize them. We have promoters of pseudoscience even in the Russian Academy of Sciences, for example, Fomenko with his 'New chronology' or Epstein with his 'release-activity' (a new type of homeopathy). Even so, the number of pro-socionic publications in peer-reviewed journals is very small, and there is no one which has even tried to prove socionic claims. There was a lot of discussion in ru-wiki about these sources before the decision to apply WP:FRINGE was made — ru:Обсуждение:Соционика/Архив/4#Итог_о_порядке_применения_ВП:МАРГ --Q Valda (talk) 10:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

As we can see, all tertiary and secondary independent professional sources (and I have cited only a small part of such sources) consider socionics as a science or scientific theory, and not as a fringe theory. Therefore, there can be no question of any pseudoscience. The weight of this non-professional point of view is very small. I suggest that all the participants in the discussion do not go aside, but honestly compare the professional sources already cited with those strange non-professional sources that were suddenly placed in the definition of socionics.--ThesariusQ (talk) 14:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what is meant by "professional sources", but we want sources by people who are not in socionics. Sources by people promoting it, using it so as to have "new ideas" to try to apply to management or pedagogy, or who talk about it alongside discredited theories like MBTI carry little weight. And since Q Valda said it, so will I: the fact it only exists in a local part of the world is also a point against it. Valid scientific ideas spread from wherever their origin and get published in major international journals. This has not. Crossroads ^-talk- 14:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I have cited quite a few tertiary and secondary independent professional reliable sources written by people who have never dealt with socionics. Our task is to compare them and those strange sources that only mention socionics. This is an elementary question of the competence of the authors. It is strange that I have to explain such simple and obvious things here on the Wiki.--ThesariusQ (talk) 15:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, let us "honestly compare the professional sources already cited...":

1. I open the first one, Military-psychological dictionary-reference, and see that it zealously approves neuro-linguistic programming, which is a canonical pseudoscience.
2. I open the second one, Dictionary of Social Psychology, it is not that zealous about NLP, but it is written as if NLP is effective (without directly stating it), and in the same article about NLP there are mentioned outdated concepts, for example that a right-handed person looking upward-leftward recalls something, while looking upward-rightward imagines something. There is no distinction whether it is what NLP practitioners claim or whether it was scientifically proved (of course, it is nowhere near to be proved, just a popular misconception). Wikisaurus (talk) 14:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Should we go to WP:RSN to make sure that these sources are not reliable? Wikisaurus (talk) 13:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

1. The presence of articles on NLP in these directories as tertiary sources indicates only that these Russian authors had no information about criticism of NLP. Unfortunately, then there were objective obstacles - the low availability of publications in English in the public domain. But we can always find secondary English-language psychological sources criticizing NLP. They are listed in the Wiki. But with socionics the situation is completely different. It is widely developed in Russia, taught at more than 150 universities, starting with the leading universities - MSU and St. Petersburg (GU). Therefore, the authors of these psychological reference books could not help but check this information. After all, it is a question of their scientific reputation among colleagues. If their Russian colleagues considered socionics a pseudoscience, these authors would never have published such an article. But these are six doctors of psychological sciences who are among the leading Russian psychologists.

2. No one but me offered my reasoned assessment to the sources №1-10, placed in the definition of socionics to substantiate the pseudoscience of socionics. The analysis of these sources, quoted by me earlier, has not been refuted by anyone. But a few years ago in ru-wiki the mediator explicitly forbade the use of such sources to justify the pseudoscience of socionics. He forbade citing sources in which socionics a) is mentioned only once, b) sources written by non-professional authors, c) sources written by authors without degrees. Moreover, according to a number of authors from these sources, he made some special decisions, explicitly banning their use in an article on "Socionics". He always maintained the principle of neutrality, as the main one in Wiki. All these quotes are collected on the discussion page in the ru-wiki. For dear participants, I can translate all the quotes from his decisions. Thus, all the work to assess these Russian-language sources has already been done. It is easy to see that none of these sources №1-10 correspond to the decisions of the mediator! a) All of them mention the word "socionics" only once without analysis, b) they are all written by authors - not psychologists, non-sociologists, non-teachers. c) Among the authors are several philosophers, a journalist-geographer Sergeev (he was directly banned by three intermediaries), a philologist, a student, and a teacher without a degree. However, some participants, based on their own negative opinions, which they did not even hide, in violation of all the rules of the Wiki for several years continued to try to put them after the departure of the mediator from the Wiki. Why couldn't they supply other sources? For a very simple reason. There are simply no other sources, especially in the field of psychology and sociology, that criticize socionics. In the end, they managed to block opponents and force these changes. Now the new mediator in the ru-wiki has confirmed the decision on neutrality, but these users refuse to comply and are waging a war of edits. Now the same process has begun in En-wiki. Therefore, I urge dear English-speaking users to be very careful and understand this issue yourself! After all, from the point of view of the rules and decisions of the mediator, these sources №1-10 are fake, and nothing more than the whole body of academic sources cited in the article and by me. But we are talking only about neutrality in the definition of socionics, and nothing more. The result is a theater of the absurd, in which English-speaking Wiki users are clearly misled. This is understandable for an unfamiliar topic, but the sources and facts are before you. If the independent sources I present are not enough, I can increase their number many times over. I would also like to note that there are more than 100 scientific works by Russian and Ukrainian aviation specialists on research on the application of socionics in aviation alone. There is a whole scientific field of "Aviation Socionics", which deals with the problem of flight safety in civil aviation. And according to the official state program of flight training in civil aviation, which was approved by the Ministry of Civil Aviation of the Russian Federation in 2001, the study of the basics of "Aviation Socionics" is mandatory. This is part of the training program. The situation is similar with Russian manned astronautics since 1991. Sincerely yours, --ThesariusQ (talk) 16:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

The Russian language wikipedia has different processes, policies, and standards than are used on the English wikipedia. Please do not bother transcribing discussions from there here - they would be immaterial to our discussions here, even if we did accept your translations as accurate (which is not a given considering how your 'reliable sources' have been anything but so far). Also, The UK and US governments have propped up stuff like Homeopathy for years. The Chinese still think Acupuncture works. Government support does not remotely mean that something isn't pseudoscience. - MrOllie (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

That is why I ask you to analyze the sources №1-10 in the preamble yourself, and compare their weight with the tertiary and secondary sources I have given, or with other sources.--ThesariusQ (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Here various unfounded statements about the pseudoscience of socionics were made. But all these claims are made without evidence and without confirmation by tertiary and secondary reliable sources. However, the reliable 27 tertiary and secondary sources cited by me clearly show that socionics is not just a scientific theory, science, but also has many theoretical and practical applications in various fields of human activity. There are thousands of such sources, as well as over a thousand dissertations. Socionics is taught at over 150 universities in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Therefore, statements about the pseudoscientific nature of socionics are an obvious fake, for the organization of which several incompetent non-professional authors were used. This is a falsification that attempts to exploit the ignorance of the Wiki editors to trick them and misinform readers.--ThesariusQ (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Mainstream personality psychologists ignore the theory

While I or other editors can analyse the sources offered above later, let's take a look at the top results on Google Scholar on the subject of "personality" (since socionics purports to be a typology of personality) that have been published in the last 20 years and see if they give any space to this theory. If they don't, that supports this being a fringe theory of essentially no interest by the relevant experts.

The following are all the listings from the first 3 pages that were fully searchable (no reason to think this introduces bias in the results), were not reprints of much older classic works, and were about human personality (e.g. one about brand personality was rejected).

1. No
2. No
3. No
4. No
5. No
6. No
7. No
8. No
9. No
10. No
11. No
12. No
13. No
14. No
15. No
16. No

It is highly significant that the top works in the field, most of which are review articles and textbooks, give zero space to this theory. Not even to criticize it, nor for historical interest. They simply ignore it. Many of the sources that ThesariusQ points to above appear to be by people who work in management theory or pedagogy, not research psychology; and are almost all from the part of the world that the theory has historically held any sway. (The two that are not treat it alongside Jung or MBTI, which is not a point in its favor as scientific.) In other words, the wider world basically ignores socionics. Many or most of those sources still appear to be by practitioners of socionics. I give those sources little weight, as it is clear that this really is a fringe theory, which outsiders generally ignore or call pseudoscience. Mainstream personality and research psychologists do not at all treat it as a valid theoretical perspective, as they would if the theory were not pseudoscience. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

This is a consideration of the wrong question. It is not about how socionics as a theoretical and applied science is included in the mainstream of personality theories. Indeed, in psychology, sociology, management, and other sciences, there are many competing theories. Because some of them are less known in some part of the world for historical, cultural, political and other reasons, these theories are not pseudoscientific. After all, we are considering a completely different question: is socionics recognized as a scientific theory in independent academic tertiary and secondary reliable sources on psychology, sociology, pedagogy, management and others? (Teachers also actively apply, improve the methods of psychology and test them in practice, defend doctoral dissertations on the application of psychology in pedagogy). The given tertiary and secondary reliable sources show that socionics has long been recognized as a scientific theory and is actively used in various fields. The second question: how much more weight are these cited sources than those that were put in the definition of socionics in the preamble, written by non-professionals in the field of psychology, sociology, pedagogy, management, and mention the word "socionics" only once, without analysis or descriptions? What is the ratio of the weights of these sources? Obviously, the weight of the above independent tertiary and secondary reliable sources is much higher than the weight of those sources suddenly put into the definition of socionics. After all, there is a WP:RSUW. Moreover, since the very weak sources put in the definition are everything that was found from many thousands of sources for criticizing socionics, it can be concluded that the sources are being manipulated with an obvious violation of the rules of WP:RSUW, WP:POV, WP:RS and others. Therefore, the question arises, what sources should be in the preamble of the article in the definition of socionics? The answer is also obvious. Tertiary and secondary reliable sources, which are written by professional psychologists, sociologists, educators, and which not only mention socionics, but describe it in more detail.--ThesariusQ (talk) 08:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear ThesariusQ, please, I have asked many times to show at least one source that proves : 1) the existence of exactly 16 socionic types, 2) their innate and unchangeable character throughout life, 3) the dichotomy of socionic traits. Which one of your 100,500 sources contains strong evidence? Theoretical constructs without evidence are not scientific, and when presented as science they are pseudoscientific --Q Valda (talk) 09:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC) moreover, these claims are obviously wrong, as shown by empirical research --Q Valda (talk) 11:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

These questions are posed fundamentally incorrectly. We are not discussing whether a theory is right or wrong. Wikipedia's job is to cite sources correctly, not do original research, and maintain a neutral point of view.If there are no sources, or they are of low weight in comparison with others, as in this case, then there is no need to invent a replacement for them. This will be original research or falsification or manipulation of a violation of the Wiki rules.--ThesariusQ (talk) 14:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

If a theory is wrong, Wikipedia should let the reader know. Wikipedia is not a mix of popular misconceptions. And if a theory is wrong, then the sources that did not mention this fact have very little weight. --Q Valda (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources are needed for statements about the fallacy or marginality or pseudo-scientific nature of a theory. But they are not. On the contrary, there are thousands of sources and dissertations considering the theory of socionics as scientific. Therefore, statements about the fallacy of the theory are the user's personal opinion, which can naturally lead to original research, falsification and manipulation of sources. Unfortunately, we see this in the preamble of the article in non-consensual edits. They are based on original research and proven misrepresentations of source texts.--ThesariusQ (talk) 09:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)