I want to declare a war

[Jarno]

oke this pisses me off.

I read it in the general wikipedia article of socionics. Socionics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Esoteric links to Socionics

Main article: Tattwas
Socionics has strong verifiable ties[16] to hindu philosophy, tattwas, the western zodiac[17], cosmology, mysticism, and the occult. On account of the overall obscurity of socionics in general these ties tend to be known and discussed more in the east than in the west. The extent socionics has derived theory from these sources is an issue of debate among westerners.

So this is either angel from himmel or hitta or another horocope moron.


This nonsense is what gives socionics a bad name and pushes it into the corner of the occult and non-science.

[Wynch]

McNew wrote the article, if you check in the discussion page you can see that.

As for sources *shrugs* he has one.

[Not A Communist Shill]

One case study obviously doesn't provide "strong verifiable ties"...that article does not say that socionics has roots in mysticism etc. (it seems to apply the link after the fact), and it doesn't provide any objective data either. Someone should do something about this!

[Creepy-male]

Dibs on supplying the moral outrage!

[Creepy-male]

If you declare war, first build a atom bomb.

HK, let's start a war. Start a nuclear war.

[1981slater]

To start a war you need guns!

The16types.info air force

It consist of F16s (obviously)

[Creepy-male]

Nah, ILEs are the air force.

I mean, they do have their heads in the clouds.

[marooned]

I personally think that his ideas are largely the product of insanity. But, of course the truly insane may not realize they are so. With something like Socionics though that is arguably insane all by itself, from a far enough vantage point it could really seem like a poe-tay-toe/poe-tah-toe issue.

Everything is related. But beneath a certain lens of insanity, the tattwa-socionics correlation seems far more stronger than it really should be, imo, just looking over the surface of it. As though it's picking a correlation at random and blowing it up to a far mightier significance than it actually warrants in the grand scheme of all the connected things.

This is what happens of course with fixations. Kind of like how a toothache can come to occupy over half of someone's conscious awareness because the nervous system is blasting its existence at full force every instant ("HEY DID YOU NOTICE THERE'S DAMAGE IN A SMALL PINPOINT OF YOUR MOUTH THAT MAKES UP A VERY SMALL PORTION OF YOUR ENTIRE BODY AND ISN'T GOING TO DO ANY PERMANENT DAMAGE ANYWAY?!!"), an obsession over tattwas can come to encompass everything about Socionics, and even life itself. They are everywhere. They pertain to everything. And in terms of any psychological theory they should be a very integral part. Of course.

[Jarno]

This is what happens of course with fixations. Kind of like how a toothache can come to occupy over half of someone's conscious awareness because the nervous system is blasting its existence at full force every instant ("HEY DID YOU NOTICE THERE'S DAMAGE IN A SMALL PINPOINT OF YOUR MOUTH THAT MAKES UP A VERY SMALL PORTION OF YOUR ENTIRE BODY AND ISN'T GOING TO DO ANY PERMANENT DAMAGE ANYWAY?!!"), an obsession over tattwas can come to encompass everything about Socionics, and even life itself. They are everywhere. They pertain to everything. And in terms of any psychological theory they should be a very integral part. Of course.

That was a very good point. I think the enemy reasons like that indeed.

[Jarno]

If you declare war, first build a atom bomb.

Nah not necessery, Rambo had only a knife.

[Jarno]

... and a particular body type...

I compensate that with my strong motivation (and some armor piercing bullets.)

Could you tell us a bit about how you'd do in a Jarno-Rambo fight? Just so we can evaluate your chances before placing bets?

Sure.

First of all, Rambo is specialized in knives and bow's. hehe pussy. I'm a specialist in about 40 different kind of assault rifles. Since I play a lot of first person shooters.

I also have an edge on Rambo in wartime since I've played many realtime strategy games. So that makes me kind of a general, and Rambo was a sergeant I believe. So even in the boardgame stratego I would whoop his ass, unless I walk on a bomb first.

Oke maybe I haven't got the real life training. But hey who needs to train to become a warmachine if you were born as one...

But for the record...isn't Sylvester Stallone typed as an SEE? Maybe we then should make love not war.

So peace to you all! (except for the horoscope morons ofcourse)

[Not A Communist Shill]

Comrades, please make a stand for Truth!

[Jarno]

The truth already exists!!

It's all written down in a book called The Bible.

Well or The Kuhran, just depends which truth suits you the most.


disclaimer: please don't feel offended etc, please don't land a 747 on my house. I just repainted it.

[aestrivex]

McNew wrote the article, if you check in the discussion page you can see that.

As for sources *shrugs* he has one.

i am not going to read his sources myself, but user RudieBoy has apparently done this. here is RudieBoy's analysis about the validity of mcnew's sources:

It should be noted that the link (link 20) used to show that Aushra Augusta was "involved with mysticism" states that this involvement happened in her later years, after the creation of Socionics. The statement "hindu philosophical thinking, chakras, and cosmological connections have been widely discussed topics among socionics authors" is hardly supported by the two links provided (links 21 and 22). Link 21 is an article by someone called Olga Krylova and talks about chakras and how it's important to [translation] "draw parallels between these ancient teachings and the young science of Socionics". One of the fifteen resources cited looks like it might actually be to do with socionics - and that particular resource is used as a tenuous way of justifying that parallels are drawn between the chakras and socionics! Link 21 is by Ekaterina Filatova, and seems to be claim that the chakras can be used to explain diseases that each type is prone too. It is not all substantitive. The four people who carried out the studies in the article are all from St. Petersburg, as is Filatova. The statement "hindu philosophical thinking, chakras, and cosmological connections have been widely discussed topics among socionics authors" is unqualified - okay, so chakras have been discussed in two articles, but what about the other things? And where's the proof that these things are widely talked about? Link 18 provides some case study about how Alexander Bukalov has used socionics to show that the Socionics types can be linked to sixteen magical warriors described in an anthropological study by Carlos Castaneda - but it is clear that this link was established after the socionics types were defined. Also, the article does nothing to show that there is any connection, and the works of Carlos Castaneda have been shown to highly suspect - i.e., madeup stories. Hardly a "strong verifiable tie" to socionics. The "Estoric links to Socionics" section should be redeleted. RudieBoy (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

personally, i am concerned by this issue. i encourage anyone that is also concerned by this issue and concerned for the welfare of the socionics page on wikipedia to go to the socionics talk page and state your opinions of the sources given and what should be done about the section, whether you agree with mcnew or not.

[Sol]

You may just remove the bullshit from article. Some dolt will return it. Then you remove it again. Some dolt... etc. And I do not see a way to resolve such situations, because admins at pedia have no obvious signs to decide who is right and have no wish to go deep into the subject. I do not recommend to use pedia articles, there may be any misleading bullshit.

[aestrivex]

You may just remove the bullshit from article. Some dolt will return it. Then you remove it again. Some dolt... etc. And I do not see a way to resolve such situations, because admins at pedia have no obvious signs to decide who is right and have no wish to go deep into the subject. I do not recommend to use pedia articles, there may be any misleading bullshit.

no; this is not the way wikipedia works. this is why wikipedia has mediation and such and requires verifiable attributions of stated content, particularly content that is disputed.

i agree that in this case wikipedia will not reach the extent of quality information as other resources such as wswiki and wikisocion, because good, verifiable sources on the topic are not as readily available as might be optimal. while i am completely unaffiliated with and cannot say anything about wikisocion policy (which has had an inconsistent history regarding attribution and nonattribution, to say the least), wswiki does not impose on itself this constraint.

[Sol]

this is not the way wikipedia works

You may try to remove bullshit that Jarno pointed. There is no authoritative source (sci magazine or something like) for that bullshit, and that is not relevant to socionics as it is understood in common, - so encyclopedic article is not the appropriate place for that. Maybe by some miracle you will have success to fit the article in rules.

[xerx]

oy! People who think there is any substance to the Russians believing esoteric bull, don't really understand Russians.

[aestrivex]

You may try to remove bullshit that Jarno pointed. There is no authoritative source (sci magazine or something like) for that bullshit, and that is not relevant to socionics as it is understood in common, - so encyclopedic article is not the appropriate place for that. Maybe by some miracle you will have success to fit the article in rules.

you have clearly not read either the articles or the summary of the articles that RudieBoy gave. your statement that the articles come from a non-authoritative source such as a "sci magazine" (whatever that is) is not correct. you have also not understood the reasons why the sources do not support the claims that mcnew is presenting in the article.

you also seem to be grossly unfamiliar with wikipedia's policy of attribution. more importantly, you are not listening to my attempts to describe said policy to you.

in conclusion, you haven't got a clue.

[07490]

This is why you should never trust what you read, It's the internet after all, personally I only trust these guys in socionics, Valentine Meged & Anatoly Ovcharov and Victor Gulenko. The rest of the other authors are either incompetent to me or did not built enough credit in my mind to trust them.

[Waddlesworth]

This is very interesting if Mcnew wrote that article.

It is also interesting that the wiki article was updated with this occult information at essentially the same time as I introduced the idea on this forum.

Few of you may understand that the tattwas are related to Socionics, but it is true that they are. It is fair that there would be criticism of these wikipedia articles because they are unsubstantiated. But the truth does not need to be substantiated to be true. Truth is truth, whether you want it to be or not.

Better not to argue about these matters. Better to substantiate the truth and provide references/sources so that the articles will not be in disupute anymore.

[Jarno]

Truth is truth, whether you want it to be or not.

I don't think anyone has anything against the truth, but to divide truth from non-truth, people would like to see some evidence. And that's were it often fails with those spiritualistic beliefs.

I just took the time to read something about tattwas and saw at first sight nothing that resembles socionics.

[Waddlesworth]

There is a residual logic which can be understood by the layman, so one could use this logic and haphazardly apply socionics to their everday life. But this is done with an accuracy comparable to a grocery store horoscope.

Those that think that they can separate socionics from the occult and use it practically are mistaken. They are wasting their time with it and will suffer immensely from their blind fascination.

See, many of you spend so much time--an unhealthy amount of time--arguing back and forth about something that you really do not know. It is silly that the one key that will lead to the first pangs of consciousness are so intensely resisted by many of you.

Self-realization inevitably leads to occultism/esotericism.

[Jarno]

There is a residual logic which can be understood by the layman, so one could use this logic and haphazardly apply socionics to their everday life. But this is done with an accuracy comparable to a grocery store horoscope.

That's simply not true, but probably a common remark of people who are new to socionics.

You will probably reject most of science anyways. Socionics is just part of that.

[Waddlesworth]

That's simply not true, but probably a common remark of people who are new to socionics.

You will probably reject most of science anyways. Socionics is just part of that.

I have been studying Socionics for 6 years. I was given the displacement laws in 2006 and as a result my knowledge is formidable.

The base of all science rests in the occult. Make no mistake about it.

To respond to your second statement:
I reject so-called science because it is false, but not true science because true science is real.

[Waddlesworth]

explaining something like the mind, complex systems may to an extent demand pushing some of the more popular (and convenient) lines of skepticism that are toed, but occultism as the alternative is like using a Ouija Board on a QM exam.

The problem here is that you have subconscious biases about occultism which are the result of ignorance. If you do not see the necessity of occultism it is because you are not ready for it.

[Creepy-bg]

The Socionics article, as well as all related articles, such as "Intuitive Logical Extrovert" etc., at Wikipedia have been marked for deletion.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socionics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You don't get it, do you? People just say "you can't prove it because there is no conclusive substantiation via cognitive experiments" and that's it. No one in their right mind disagrees with socionics unless they haven't studied the material. You'd better watch out, I might just type you and watch you explode....

jesus christ.

I think I'm in favor of delete tbh just so tcaud will stop trying to be the "face" of socionics on wikipedia. It's fucking embarresing and makes us all looks like asshats.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Socionics is in fact strongly linked to things like astrology, and esoteric personal development principals, as well as Westernized methods of our relationship social structure, things like that.

The chances if you're into Socionics, that you're also into philosophy, writing, the self-help movement, socialism, other generally leftist activities -- is very high. I'm sure you could easily divide socionics fans into a certain demographic.

You might criticize yourself (and others) for being this way and/or deny it- but the fact is, socionics is pretty much a solid leftist theory of personal relationship and helping people find love, people are primarily going to use it for those reasons realistically speaking.

Are cruel, homophobic, older white males into Socionics? Not bloody likely. They're too busy trying to gain external power in the real world to bother with something like this.

Socionics belongs in the vein of solid leftist academia, meaning it's interesting to go to a coffee shop and talk to your friends about it, but you can't really actually DO anything with it, even if you try- but hey it can help you be more aware of your relationships, I think which is a good thing- just like education and science CAN make your life better, if you're able to apply it in the right way.

[Jarno]

Socionics belongs in the vein of solid leftist academia, meaning it's interesting to go to a coffee shop and talk to your friends about it, but you can't really actually DO anything with it,

you can dump your conflictor and date your dual. This will make your life better about 300% better. So you can DO something with it.

Socionics has nothing to do with occult. What would be the link then, probably the same link as drinking coffee has to do with the occult. Because you probably think everything in the world is related to the occult. Occult is for charlatans.

[Jarno]

The Socionics article, as well as all related articles, such as "Intuitive Logical Extrovert" etc., at Wikipedia have been marked for deletion.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socionics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I cannot imagine that they will actually delete it, but we'll see how crazy they are...

[iAnnAu]

Self-realization inevitably leads to occultism/esotericism.

Unless you're playing some sort of game with semantics here, I'm gonna go with a big fat negatory on that. I see it as the opposite way, and even then without the "inevitable."

Self-realization will free you from any need for fucking occultism or esotericism. The -isms may purport to be your path toward self-realization, but I don't see the point in it if all it means is further slavery to a system.

I certainly can't lay any claim to enlightenment as a sustained state, but I've had moments closer to it than this one, and they had fuck all to do with the occult. I'm willing to read about such things and untwist from them what truths I can, but in the final analysis all these systems become unnecessary: they are at best vehicles, not the thing itself. And need I add that they are rarely "at best"?

[mu4]

jesus christ.

I think I'm in favor of delete tbh just so tcaud will stop trying to be the "face" of socionics on wikipedia. It's fucking embarresing and makes us all looks like asshats.

User:Mangoe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This guy is a total nut with a lighthouse fetish.

Some sort of Te or Fi dom with serious psychological problems.
Maybe the two will delete each other in conflict.

[Waddlesworth]

Unless you're playing some sort of game with semantics here, I'm gonna go with a big fat negatory on that. I see it as the opposite way, and even then without the "inevitable."

Self-realization will free you from any need for fucking occultism or esotericism. The -isms may purport to be your path toward self-realization, but I don't see the point in it if all it means is further slavery to a system.

I certainly can't lay any claim to enlightenment as a sustained state, but I've had moments closer to it than this one, and they had fuck all to do with the occult. I'm willing to read about such things and untwist from them what truths I can, but in the final analysis all these systems become unnecessary: they are at best vehicles, not the thing itself. And need I add that they are rarely "at best"?

Your use of the word "fuck" indicates to me that you have little more to offer us all than a meaningless, feeling-toned insult.

The use of "isms", is. What is, is. You have to accept that isms exist. They do. They are real.

As for everyone else:

I am the one that has instigated this wikipedia scandal. If you notice when it began you will find that the first signs of it were in the days following my announcement on this forum that Socionics is an occult science. What I say here on this forum has alot of gravity.

I remain in the shadows and orchestrate this event that is happening right now.

I agree with Mcnew in the sense that the esoteric side of Socionics is being ignored. Proponents in the west tend to try and ignore the esoteric side of socionics because it makes them uncomfortable and they fear rejection and ridicule by outsiders. But what is humorous in all of this is that none of these proponents can logically substantiate Socionics in an empirical way.

So they are embarrassed by the occult underpinnings, but they do not have any way refute them. They simply get angry and curse and swear. They say "no, it is not occult!" But it is! Socionics is based in occultism/esotericism. They cannot prove otherwise. So they practice occultism without acknowledging this fact. It is purely silliness and foolishness! What is worse is that they cannot use their western empirical science, which they value so highly, in order to substantiate Socionics.

I support Mcnew's efforts, but it is obvious to me that Mcnew is not fully aware of the gravity of what he is doing. He is being guided by forces beyond his control(Much like Delong, who really is very much overestimated, though equally sincere and incipient). As you note, over time he[Mcnew] gradually evolves his arguments as he gains more exoteric occult knowledge. This is because he began championing the occult side of Socionics before he was completely ready, simply in an enthusiastic response to my posts. So my complaint is that he is offering a lopsided occult/mystic interpretation which is incomplete and naive. McNew does not yet have sufficient information available to support the occult/esoteric/mystical basis of Socionics.

My opinion on this matter is that Socionics has reached the sufficient number of individuals in order to initiate a broad awakening in this new era of North America. It is now the time that Socionics must die as a popular movement and recede into the shadows so that it can integrate within the occult circles. It is my opinion that it would be best that Socionics has had its run as a popular movement in North America.

That is why I agree that Socionics should be deleted from Wikipedia.

[Creepy-bg]

User:Mangoe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This guy is a total nut with a lighthouse fetish.

Some sort of Te or Fi dom with serious psychological problems.
Maybe the two will delete each other in conflict.

lol lighthouses and trains... Freud would have a field day with that guy

[normal]

chuck norris is the man.