Instead of creating a brazen unauthorized journal of socionics, why not integrate socionics into analytic psychology?
Instead of creating a brazen unauthorized journal of socionics, why not integrate socionics into analytic psychology?
Unauthorized by who? Why should we need authorization from someone else?Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
You don't think the neuroscientists (or their supporters) won't try to clamp down on ideas that don't rely on their research? We could end up in the same boat as the creationists.
This statement screams PoLR Se! You are completely blind to how power operates. It profits them little for them to concern themselves with us.
How much analytical psychology actually uses concrete evidence? (Genuine question, I'm not sure how much Jung and etc. have been proven or accepted by psychology). Probably would be better to just accumulate what we know and what articles we think are good first, before we try to extend into somewhere else. I do think have a single, unchanging, journal would be a good idea, although it can be developed at the same time as the wiki page.
Warm Regards,
Clowns & Entropy
The evidence is indeed inconcrete; it's based on probability. Given anecdotal evidence, is proposition A true or its antithesis, proposition B? Perhaps the answer is somewhere in the middle, but you're still saying that the proposition of either A or B is false, which is a step forward from where you were.
If you're a gamma, you probably aren't gonna spend a lot of time trying to verify the truth value of propositions through thought experiment alone. Valued vs unvalued and all that.
You make a good argument about the journal, and I might be more for it if I didn't suspect a projection-based bias against certain directions in socionics thought. I see this more as a format for attacking mine and hitta's ideas, which hmmkr apparently wants to do, than airing new directions in socionics thought. Popular ideas, if accurate, are exalted in journal format because any deep seated biases in the editors goes unchecked. Unpopular ideas, even if accurate, are intentionally not published.
I think hmmkr's calculation is that you'll overlook his abuses of power against certain people and ideas if you think there is something in it for you. He's counting on your selfishness and indifference.
The neuroscientists wouldn't bother targeting a socionics journal until it got big enough, and then they will would only target it if it conflicted with their own interest. Science vs Theism isn't even an academic issue its a political one, and journals are not that political. If socionics was used to a political end it would transmit into that realm, and it could but I don't see that happening any time soon.
I just want to know what the standards for the journal are in a clear way to dodge any future bullshit about censorship etc that may come up.
They wouldn't target the journal -- they'd target the people who associated with it. Career destruction.
Take your pills, Grandma!
Neuroscientist
My impression is that tcaud understands the game of power much more than you do... The general assumption that scientists are honest and are there only for the truth is justified just up to a certain extent.
Of course, neuroscientists -- like the psychoanalytic, cognitive, and behavioral psychologists before them -- easily entertain and accept the validity of Jungian thought. They would never have paranoid delusions about its possible irrelevance, or non-existence, which would just as likely blind them to their own foibles.
The truth is that this is not the case. Most of them misinterpret Jung's ideas of the collective unconscious as mysticism, and judge everything associated with his legacy in that light.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
