It's time to awaken

[tcaudilllg]

With my bacculaureate all but finished (it will be by winter), I am ready to begin leading the entry of socionics into the mainstream. My strategy is as follows: I'm going to prepare a paper, publish it in a journal, and gauge the psychology community's reception to it. I'm in no hurry to write the paper... I would prefer that it were a collaborative enterprise with many signatories and contributors. The paper will be submitted to one of the analytic psychology journals, perhaps one with a more modest reputation. Obviously if the modest credentials of the authors are given more weight than the substance, that's a setback we would like to avoid. A poll I saw on one of the major journal sites surveyed the academic community's opinions on the stringency of editor requirements for a journal. By a wide margin, the community agreed that the requirements should be in proportion to the reputation of the journal.

My topic for the main paper will be to integrate Brian P. Mitchell's types with the sociotypes. I do not intend to half-ass it: it will be an exceptional treatise on par with foundational works of the past. It will be long... maybe as much as 30-40 pages. I will briefly touch on the EM types... true understanding of the nature of the 2nd type requires reference to Mitchell's types.

[NewBorn STAR]

STOP wiTH THE GOOD TITLES BAD TEXTS RAMPAGES BITCH

[GuavaDrunk]

You're just disappointed it's not mystical.

Tcaudilllg, it's notoriously hard work to get papers accepted for publication. And given the subject matter, you'll probably only get in fringe publication to start with, if that. And probably more theory-based ones.

I suggest getting some sort of data in to make it look good, for eg correlations based on traits associated with IMs and those 8 other types you mentioned and checked for in interviews or questionnaires (even so, you'll need a solid theoretical basis to explain the how and why of the IMs).

Apart from that, whatever your path, very good luck.

[MisterNi]

Remember to make small claims per paper. It'll give you the illusion of being a prolific writer which should help increase your exposure. Also expect a hostile reaction or outright dismissals many times. What you're attempting sounds daunting but don't let the little people get to you.

Good luck.

[April]

You're going to have a hard time establishing credibility for socionics, let alone attributing Brian Mitchell's 8 political perspectives to socionics functions, and then proving it is of any value. Your entire piece of work would be criticized and dismissed for having no basis.

Start with Jung's published works, Kepinski's theory of information metabolism, and Augusta's model A. You might be able to build something from there instead of being so foolishly ambitious.

Bingo.

Tcaud, is there a professor interested in personality psychology at your university? Perhaps you could talk to them about collaborating on a literature review on the basics of Socionics. Baby steps...

[tcaudilllg]

You're going to have a hard time establishing credibility for socionics, let alone attributing Brian Mitchell's 8 political perspectives to socionics functions, and then proving it is of any value. Your entire piece of work would be criticized and dismissed for having no basis.

Start with Jung's published works, Kepinski's theory of information metabolism, and Augusta's model A. You might be able to build something from there instead of being so foolishly ambitious.

Bingo.

Tcaud, is there a professor interested in personality psychology at your university? Perhaps you could talk to them about collaborating on a literature review on the basics of Socionics. Baby steps...

:rolls eyes: Why don't you help me do it then?

[NewBorn STAR]

So many sleeping people here

[Creepy-male]

Einstein launched his career with 3 great papers in one year to academic journals in 1905. You should give it a try, the worst that could happen is nothing, which is exactly the same thing that will happen if you do nothing.

[tcaudilllg]

Einstein launched his career with 3 great papers in one year to academic journals in 1905. You should give it a try, the worst that could happen is nothing, which is exactly the same thing that will happen if you do nothing.

That's true. However only Plank responded in the beginning. Part of that was due to Einstein's being less than koshure, of course: he neglected to cite the work of many people whose findings he rediscovered, unawares, in the course of creating special relativity... of course many academics couldn't understand his arguments, either.

However I would like to remark -- I meant to say this in the first post -- I see the real awakening as for this community, and for socionics in general. No longer just a few people in Ukraine doing the lion's share of the speculation... the push to create a fully descriptive system of personality for its own sake, with thousands of speculators seeking to contribute to its development. I've put a lot of thought into how such an effort might be conducted... I think it could be managed in a matter similar to the code versioning systems used by open source software projects. Discoveries are submitted to a weekly register, where everyone who submits roughly similar ideas in the same week are credited as co-discoverers. I think this would be an ideal means of managing contributions to a field as dynamic and accessible as social trait psychology.

[tcaudilllg]

You're going to have a hard time establishing credibility for socionics, let alone attributing Brian Mitchell's 8 political perspectives to socionics functions, and then proving it is of any value. Your entire piece of work would be criticized and dismissed for having no basis.

Start with Jung's published works, Kepinski's theory of information metabolism, and Augusta's model A. You might be able to build something from there instead of being so foolishly ambitious.

Bingo.

Tcaud, is there a professor interested in personality psychology at your university? Perhaps you could talk to them about collaborating on a literature review on the basics of Socionics. Baby steps...

And how would we obtain such literature? If you don't live in Ukraine, you cannot get the original articles. It would make more sense to cite Filatova's book.

[Creepy-male]

Einstein launched his career with 3 great papers in one year to academic journals in 1905. You should give it a try, the worst that could happen is nothing, which is exactly the same thing that will happen if you do nothing.

That's true. However only Plank responded in the beginning. Part of that was due to Einstein's being less than koshure, of course: he neglected to cite the work of many people whose findings he rediscovered, unawares, in the course of creating special relativity... of course many academics couldn't understand his arguments, either.

However I would like to remark -- I meant to say this in the first post -- I see the real awakening as for this community, and for socionics in general. No longer just a few people in Ukraine doing the lion's share of the speculation... the push to create a fully descriptive system of personality for its own sake, with thousands of speculators seeking to contribute to its development. I've put a lot of thought into how such an effort might be conducted... I think it could be managed in a matter similar to the code versioning systems used by open source software projects. Discoveries are submitted to a weekly register, where everyone who submits roughly similar ideas in the same week are credited as co-discoverers. I think this would be an ideal means of managing contributions to a field as dynamic and accessible as social trait psychology.

ugh all that isn't really the point of what I said, its that it is possible to launch your career via writing papers or really any other form of high quality work.

Basically my point was that producing valuable work can speak for itself.

[Airman]

Though socionics is scientific, current science has no capacity to accept/understand it in a way that psychologists can work with. Nevertheless I assume you want to be a pioneer and I wish you good luck. I can only advise you not to enter into 240-subtype things and other complicated ravings in your presentation of socionics. Most people are very dumb, and when they see something that shows them their lack of intellect, they reject it. The simpler the better. I wish you good luck tcaud.

[Words]

With my bacculaureate all but finished (it will be by winter), I am ready to begin leading the entry of socionics into the mainstream. My strategy is as follows: I'm going to prepare a paper, publish it in a journal, and gauge the psychology community's reception to it. I'm in no hurry to write the paper... I would prefer that it were a collaborative enterprise with many signatories and contributors. The paper will be submitted to one of the analytic psychology journals, perhaps one with a more modest reputation. Obviously if the modest credentials of the authors are given more weight than the substance, that's a setback we would like to avoid. A poll I saw on one of the major journal sites surveyed the academic community's opinions on the stringency of editor requirements for a journal. By a wide margin, the community agreed that the requirements should be in proportion to the reputation of the journal.

My topic for the main paper will be to integrate Brian P. Mitchell's types with the sociotypes. I do not intend to half-ass it: it will be an exceptional treatise on par with foundational works of the past. It will be long... maybe as much as 30-40 pages. I will briefly touch on the EM types... true understanding of the nature of the 2nd type requires reference to Mitchell's types.

Can you tell me why a clever man like you doesn't work to free us from the banking cabal, instead focus on socionics, unless there's something else to tell?

[tcaudilllg]

Can you tell me why a clever man like you doesn't work to free us from the banking cabal, instead focus on socionics, unless there's something else to tell?

Well the short answer is that socionics can be the anchor upon which you derive the whole personality gamut, thanks to its theory of information metabolism. There are a variety of ways to "subtype" socionics -- many, many ways in fact. I've observed the existence of dozens of subtype spectrums over the past several years... you can discover a great deal about human nature by looking at a single trait in the context of the 16 sociotypes. Until socionics gains acceptance, capacity to communicate understanding about these traits will remain hampered. Some might argue that enneagram already achieves that purpose (I disagree), but in any event enneagram will never become policy. What we really need is a means by which to perceive scheming/stupidity in action, to be able to stop it before it comes to fruition. Most people have internal wards against that sorta thing... for those who don't, a greatly expanded socionics will permit that they be identified and monitored, not at an official level but at an unofficial "he's not fooling anybody" local awareness. I already have this vantagepoint, and although I am intellectually empowered I myself can do nothing, nor can I communicate my vantagepoint so as to empower others. I can advise but a mixture of hopelessness and disempowerment is being cultivated alongside a nagging positivism in the media towards the big money figures. Fortune Magazine is going out of their way to creating this atmosphere... you can see it on CNN Money by the week. The mainstream media is no longer willing to tell the straight truth... behold only the latest evidence for that argument:


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43860044/

- Back in the U.S., companies are squeezing more productivity out of staffs thinned out by layoffs during Great Recession. They don't need to hire. And they don't need to be generous with pay raises; they know their employees have nowhere else to go.
- Companies remain reluctant to spend the $1.9 trillion in cash they've accumulated, especially in the United States. They're unconvinced that consumers are ready to spend again with the vigor they showed before the recession, and they are worried about uncertainty in U.S. government policies.

Here you see the real situation first (the obvious one), and then the 2nd obligatory "suck up" excuse offered for sake of the Business community, who say that unless the Dems vow not to try to boost the economy, they won't invest in jobs. But the stimulus spending may be the least of their concerns; indeed, every reformer I've talked to has advocated a round of trust busting. I must agree, ripping the Fortune 500 to shreds would drastically increase competition and probably jolt the economy.

Rambling aside, socionics makes legitimate policy easier. In fact, when you add Mitchell's types to socionics, plus personality disorders, you get this huge hammer to slam the radical right with again, and again, and again -- it turns out the left has a significantly lower frequency of personality disorder manifestations than does the right, because the left sees their negative tendencies for what they are, while the right consistently sees a silver lining. Advances in social trait understanding could do for left-wing public policy what modern biology and geology has done for the theory of evolution. We could see a definite shift away from deregulation and towards a "rights restricted" ethos in which people are given rights based on their traits, all predicated on basis of personality research.

Of course, some people will demand neuroscientific substantiation before committing to support for policy changes, and this is where there will be trouble. I fully expect there will be an enormous amount of bad neuroscience funded by the right wing for confusion purposes, just as we have seen with global warming. There are already shadows of this in the journals... crazies arguing for a supreme will and choice that there is no sign of, and thus the legitimacy of punishment. (Quite frankly I think punishment worthwhile for cathartic release alone). Now of course there is the study by David Amodio showing that liberalism and conservatism have a neurological basis, but the media worked quick to blunt it by offering "both sides", including the skeptical contingent which argued the research "was not enough" to be sure that environment alone was not the cause. This is why faith (for lack of a better word) in information metabolism itself is important.

The real question as I see it is how the hell to get this started. Going from eight functions to 16 seems to be the first step, so the focus would be on plus and minus. The problem is that even there, so there must be an original presentation. Citing Gulenko and the "ring progression" principle is the means of saying, for example, that the possibility component of Ne has nothing to do with any component of Fi. So the first paper ultimately becomes not a review, but a critique of the theory.