The War on Socionics

[tcaudilllg]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socionics

Look at what has become of the article... even the slightest inferences (Rick's own) are being questioned for citation.

Well basically I tried to insert some notes about socionics' approach to personal creativity in the "creativity" article, and not only did it get removed, but the socionics article itself has been essentially defaced. A guy who is zealous about keeping in-universe information out of Wikipedia and generally not allowing in even the slightest bit of information that has not been specifically stated in a research journal or a "notable publication" has been following me around, thinking I'm some kinda malcontent or something. (we had a confrontation over Xenosaga.) Apparently he decided to investigate the suitability of the socionics article for himself... and look what has happened to it.

This is just a general aspect of what appears to be the "death-by-overcritique" of Wikipedia. It only started a few months ago, but has quickly gained a lot of steam. Only a few days ago, a "featured article" featured with so many rediculous references (two pages for a six page article) I would say it's regretable, but it's not too late for someone to do something about it. After all, when Wikipedia loses, we all lose.

But this guy called socionics "pseudo-psychology", obviously without knowing what it was about. Clearly evident claims by socionics is that 1) all people are creative, and 2) there are 16 different styles of creativity. Notice also how MBTI isn't there, either. This is a sign of a campaign against typology in general, one of Freud's lingering legacies, masquerading as an honest and well-intentioned means of certifying information.

This may not seem like a big deal but, do you really think this guy will accept Rick's site as a reliable source of socionics information? I don't think so. He may aim to wipe out the entire article....

To illustrate the problem...

Socionics, having originated in Vilnius, has developed extensively[citation needed] in the former Soviet Union in the past 30 years. In the Russian-speaking world (primarily Russia and Ukraine, but also the Baltic States, Central Asia, and Russian communities abroad) socionics has grown significantly in popularity, and is now a topic of discussion among large numbers of amateurs, as well as a group of a few hundred professionals whose experience and discoveries in socionics are highly regarded.[citation needed] Clubs for socializing and/or theoretical discussion exist in many large cities across the former USSR.[5],[6] A couple journals exist, as well as a number of organizations which periodically hold conferences in Kiev, Moscow, St. Petersburg, and other cities.[7]

In the West, however, socionics exists as little more than an internet phenomenon due to its novelty. (It was first introduced in English on the Internet in the mid 90s.[citation needed]) Although there do exist English discussion forums[8][9] where some significant[citation needed] discussion of the theoretical and practical aspects of socionics does occur, little understanding of Socionics has dispersed beyond them.[citation needed]

I personally find this "critique" insulting. (although it was Rick that wrote it and not I; I just find the questioning of such basic, evident truths stupid and time wasting.)

[aestrivex]

tcaud, stfu please. everything that unequivocally must be in the socionics article is there. random socionics concepts do not belong in wikipedia pages like "creativity" because they have nothing to do with creativity as a whole. they instead belong in the socionics article.

i don't know who this person is that is challenging rick's site, but as far as the socionics article itself goes it's currently credited as legitimate, though this has been contested (and, despite lack of consensus-breaking participation, effectively overruled for the interim).

now shut up and go away.

[UDP]

Xenosaga

The fact that you used this word - a videogame - in the post probably does not help socionics credibility.

[aestrivex]

To illustrate the real problem...

To illustrate the problem...

[...]

I personally find this "critique" insulting. (although it was Rick that wrote it and not I; I just find the questioning of such basic, evident truths stupid and time wasting.)

tcaud, go fuck yourself.

[Creepy-bg]

hey, thanks for linking your recognized crankdom to socionics... I'm sure we all appreciate it

[tcaudilllg]

Xenosaga

The fact that you used this word - a videogame - in the post probably does not help socionics credibility.

That has nothing to do with the socionics article. I was explaining why he is suspicious of my edits.

[Slacker]

If the "truths" were "basic and evident", no one would be questioning them. So they must not be.

If people are going to read that wanting to learn, provide citations. If one person was looking for them, someone else at some point will be too. Look at it as an opportunity to improve the article. In the long run, it'll be much stronger.

[aestrivex]

actually i think that we should get rid of the {{cite}} tags. they're pretty redundant.

[tcaudilllg]

If the "truths" were "basic and evident", no one would be questioning them. So they must not be.

If people are going to read that wanting to learn, provide citations. If one person was looking for them, someone else at some point will be too. Look at it as an opportunity to improve the article. In the long run, it'll be much stronger.

Your weak is showing. It could be very difficult for Rick to provide those citations. If he can't provide them immediately, the entire phrase may be deleted by anyone who has the gumption to do so. When something is marked for citation on Wikipedia, the immediate implication is "take this with a grain of salt; it's not necessarily credible." Overuse of citation tags is source of distrust and unwarranted suspicion.

Besides, the link to Rick's site, and the Institute sites, were citation enough.

@Niffweed:
Go fuck yourself autsy boy.


EDIT: For the sake of argument...

tcaud, stfu please. everything that unequivocally must be in the socionics article is there. random socionics concepts do not belong in wikipedia pages like "creativity" because they have nothing to do with creativity as a whole. they instead belong in the socionics article.

I was trying to draw experts' attention, actually. Most people don't know what socionics says about creativity. You look at an article like this and you're thinking (most people's thinking, anyhow) is "this is pretty much all science has to say about creativity now. I can rely on this article to have the basic gist of what is known about creativity." And that defines your frame of reference. No mention of socionics, nor any understanding of what socionics offers to the study of creativity. But if you do have the mentioning, then people start realizing that socionics does indeed apply to them! To creativity, no less! And then they start doing, in the West, the work that finally correlates the socionics functions to the brain.

Really, it pains me to observe the degree to which the West is lagging behind with regard to the functions of the psyche.

[force my hand]

...much less worrisome than the war on terror.

[Ezra]

Why find that insulting? There's nothing remotely insulting about it.

[xyz]

I guess different people are insulted by different things. =~~

[tcaudilllg]

Why find that insulting? There's nothing remotely insulting about it.

Why wouldn't there be? He's basically saying that Rick's word isn't credible. He's asked for citations on things that anyone familiar with the topic generally understands to be true. I don't think you really understand the root of his thinking; what's driving him; or what he's really trying to accomplish.