for the people who still think socionics hasn't been scientifically investigated.
here are the sites with journals.
http://www.socionics.ibc.com.ua/ej/index.html
http://www.socionics.ibc.com.ua/ejpsy/index.html
socionics research journals
for the people who still think socionics hasn't been scientifically investigated.
here are the sites with journals.
http://www.socionics.ibc.com.ua/ej/index.html
http://www.socionics.ibc.com.ua/ejpsy/index.html
click any of the left side journals and many are named under 'research'.Originally Posted by Ashton
These publications belong to "institutes" that are not officially accredited academic institutions. Moreover, diplomas in Socionics are provided by these same institutions as part of a degree mill operation. Your websites are about as credible as the Discovery Institute, a popular intelligent design think tank.
Try again.
so all these professors are amateurs who don't know what they are doing? please go tell them that they are participating in a non scientific event comparable to intelligent design, and don't forget to report back to me how hard you got laughed at.
Alexandre Boukalov, Ph.D. in Psychology, Ph.D. in Socionics, Director of International Socionics Institute
Grigory Bukalov, Doctor of Technical Sciences, Professor;
Elena Donchenko, Doctor of Sociology, Kiev Institute of Sociology of Ukraine National Academy of Sciences
Semen Churumov, Ph.D. in Psychology;
Valerij Hrycak, Dr., Professor of London University;
Ivan Zyazyun, Ph.D., Professor, Academician of Ukraine Academy of Pedagogical Sciences, Director of Institute of Pedagogic and Psychology of Professional Education
Dmitry Ivanov, Ph.D.,
Leonid Marakhovsky, Doctor of Technical Sciences, Professor of the Computer Faculty of Kiev National Economical University
Victor Novikov, President of International Academy of Psychology, Doctor of Psychology, professor
Nikolay Obozov, Academician of International Academy of Psychology, Doctor of Psychology, Professor
Yury Saenko, Doctor of Economics, Chief of the Department of Kiev Institute of Sociology of the Ukraine National Academy of Sciences
Grigory Reynin, Ph.D. in Psychology, Ph.D. in Socionics, the Real Member of International Academy of Informatization (IASC)
Look, I don't have time to research these individuals and the basis for their credentials. It doesn't list when or where they obtained their degrees making the effort of tracking down their academic fidelity difficult (after all, their "legitimate" degrees could have been authorized by seemingly official institutions that obtained their accreditation from an accreditation mill). It doesn't really matter either way, just because you have a legitimate doctorate in something doesn't mean you can't be a quack. Michael Behe is the only prominent advocate of Intelligent Design who has an authentic Ph.D in biology, yet he is still considered a quack for his unconventional views on evolutionary biology. The people listed with Ph.Ds in Socionics are probably quacks as well, because there are no officially accredited academic institutions offering proper courses in the study of Socionics. Socionics is not a widely accepted field of scientific or social science inquiry. Again, I refer you to the Wikipedia article on diploma mills.
I could make a website for a non-profit organization that claims the Earth is flat and list a bunch of people with important-sounding degrees and write articles for journals self-published by the institute and give off a veneer of authenticity, too. It doesn't mean that the idea of a flat Earth isn't a half-baked falsehood.
You are falling victim to the same style of tactics utilized by Biblical creationists in the United States whose agenda is to take evolution out of science classrooms, or at least present it alongside "alternative" theories like Intelligent Design. They even create euphemisms like "creation science" in an effort to give an air of authority to their dumbass theories that have no basis in reality. Socionics in Russia is apparently no different.
Try again.
Last edited by Capitalist Pig; 04-01-2011 at 11:50 PM.
Grigory Reynin, Ph.D. in Psychology, Ph.D. in Socionics
lol
But the Earth is flat! There is even a society dedicated to it with research so it must be true: Flat Earth Society.
They have a list of articles and even a book written by a guy with a PhD! Research.
“No psychologist should pretend to understand what he does not understand... Only fools and charlatans know everything and understand nothing.” -Anton Chekhov
http://kevan.org/johari?name=Bardia0
http://kevan.org/nohari?name=Bardia0
haha, I know right?
Oops, well there goes my logic!
Jarno, you're not going to convince anybody until you can produce a research paper published in a mainstream, peer-reviewed psychology journal that is funded and published independently of so-called Socionics institutes, who clearly have an agenda in legitimatizing Socionics -- or at least making it appear legitimate -- and who profit from dubious corporate consulting services and by offering people worthless pieces of paper that "ceritfy" them in the made-up study of Socionics.
there are probably a lot of false certifications around of numerous branches. That doesn't immediately make that branche unscientific.
Socionics meets a lot of criteria for the demarcation problem to be called scientific. MBTI has been proven with scientific tests many times. Why would socionics be different.
If you want to know whether it meets your specific criteria, why don't you ask Boukalov. He probably has no problem supplying you the right information.
Last edited by Jarno; 04-02-2011 at 11:54 PM.
But the entire "branch" often isn't made up entirely out of thin air.
No, it hasn't.
The MBTI isn't science, nor is it based on science, and psychometrics never claimed to be anything more than a statistical tool that looks for consistent results. However, the consistency of results =/= science, or that there is an empirical foundation, and MBTI barely yields reliable results as it is. The fact of the matter is there is no experiment that lends credence to the theory of Jung's psychological types, or the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. The existence of types has never been proven. Jungian "psychology" as a whole is not fucking science.
Yeah, I'll get right on that.
SOOOOOOO IRONIC...
SOOOOOOO IRONIC...
this is retarded
maybe a saint is just a dead prick with a good publicist
maybe tommorow's statues are insecure without their foes
go ask the frog what the scorpion knows
There have been numerious scientific experiments done for mbti. You're probably just not aware of them.
Cowan 1989
Devito 1985
Mccrae & Costa 1989
Hanewitz 1978
Apostal 1991
Murray & Johnson 2001
Barrineau 2005
Stilwell Wallick Thal & Burleson 2000
Harrington & Loffredo 2001
Mathew & Bhatewara 2006
Huifang & Shuming 2004
Loffredo & Opt 2006
Carlson & Levy 1973
Gram Dunn & Ellis 2005
Carlson 1980
And pray, tell, what journals were these experiments published in?
INFj
9w1 sp/sx
pray? are you referring to me? who's pray?
if you are referring to me, those experiments were published in international journals. for example costa and mcrae are the ones who also made the theory of 'the big five'.
I have my information from the book theories of personality, it's from a course in psychology.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pray_tell
INFj
9w1 sp/sx
ah oke.
I hope I've provided the requested information in my former post.
I did see a research paper published to Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in 1989 by McCrae and Costa called "The structure of interpersonal traits: Wiggins's circumplex and the five-factor model"
Is this the example you would be referring to?
INFj
9w1 sp/sx
DeVito, A J (1985) [Review of Myers-Bnggs Type Indicator] InJ V Mitchell, JrDevito 1985
(Ed), Ninth mental measurements yearbook (Vol 2, pp 1030-1032) Lincoln University of Nebraska Press
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal...accno=EJ177178Hanewitz 1978
Published in something called "Crime and Delinquincy" which as far as I can tell http://cad.sagepub.com/ is "a policy-oriented journal offering a wide range of research and analysis for the scholar and professional in criminology and criminal justice."
I found http://www.aptinternational.org/asse..._1105_apti.pdf this which was published in the Journal of Psychological Type, a journal edited by proponents of MBTIGram Dunn & Ellis 2005
Should I keep digging?
INFj
9w1 sp/sx
The relationship between life satisfaction, self-consciousness, and the Myers-Briggs type inventory dimensions.
by R Harrington, D A Loffredo The Journal of Psychology (2001)
Mathew, P., & Bhatewara, S. (2006). Personality differences and preferred styles of conflictMathew & Bhatewara 2006
management among managers. Abhigyan, 23, 38-45.
"Abhigyan: The quarterly journal of Foundation of Organizational Research and Education"
"ABHIGYAN is the quest for identity of institutions and people. In Sanskrit it means direct perception aided by prior knowledge."
http://www.connectjournals.com/subsc...mark=CJ-002598
Last edited by tereg; 04-03-2011 at 06:28 PM.
INFj
9w1 sp/sx
Barrineau, P. (2005). Personality Types Among Undergraduates who Withdraw from Liberal Arts Colleges: Journal of Psychological Type Vol 65(4) Oct 2005, 27-32.
See above.
Stilwell, N. A., Wallick, M. M., Thal, S. E., & Burleson, J. A. (2000). Myers-Briggs type and medicalStilwell Wallick Thal & Burleson 2000
specialty choice: A new look at an old question. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 12(1),
14-20.
"Teaching and Learning in Medicine serves as an international forum for scholarly, state-of-the-art research on the purposes and processes of teaching and learning as they relate to the education of medical professionals."
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/tit...80~tab=summary
INFj
9w1 sp/sx
while jarno is generally full of shit and his participation in this thread is full of glaring ignorance, bullshit, and dogma, there's one important point to be made here, which is that socionics makes some potentially falsifiable and testable predictions about intertype relations at a close psychological distance (presumably operationalizing types, or perhaps more realistically, quadras as the result of some clinical assessment).
the fact that this work hasn't to my knowledge been done in any real or controlled way (regarding socionics, and not MBTI or variants thereof) doesn't suggest that it cannot represent a scientific problem.
put more technically, rick delong described socionics as a protoscience (or potentially merely nonscience) rather than a strict pseudoscience. the more i think about how various hypotheses in socionics might be framed the more i agree with this description.
Loffredo, D. A. & Opt, S. K. (2006). Argumentativeness and Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). Journal of Psychological Type.
Carlson, R. & Levy, N. (1973). Studies of Jungian typology: I. Memory, social perception, and social action. Journal of Personality. 41(4), 559-576.Carlson & Levy 1973
"Journal of Personality publishes scientific investigations in the field of personality. It focuses particularly on personality and behavior dynamics, personality development, and individual differences in the cognitive, affective, and interpersonal domains. The journal reflects and stimulates interest in the growth of new theoretical and methodological approaches in personality psychology."
Ok, so far I've looked at 9 studies listed, three of them deal directly with psychology and behavior, three of them are from a journal that is edited by MBTI proponents, one deal with education, one is a journal for criminology, and one wasn't even a journal but a university press publication
INFj
9w1 sp/sx
You're such an intelligent person, what took you so long?
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
go to hell.
maybe because you need the russian variant of psycinfo?
wait, you still use falsification as a criteria for the demarcation problem? do you live in the same year as I do?
yes they are all journals written by scientists for scientists... so? You still don't find that scientific enough? Then nothing can be scientific enough and that makes you simply unreasonable and most likely not educated enough to make a judgement about it.
Professional science has become a Te-dominated field. Unless it can be marketed, it doesn't get much attention anymore in the west.
One of the shortcomings of capitalist democracy, one might expect. However, qualitative studies tend to be done by counseling psychologists in their spare time, not professional experimenters.
The ones that are relevant are the studies published in journals that deal directly with psychology. I don't think a study on some aspect of personality that is published in a criminology journal is one that will carry much weight.
What I'm saying is, is that out of a handful of the studies that you've listed, some of them are published in journals that aren't even related to the topic. However, I concede that some of them do come from reputable psychological journals.
INFj
9w1 sp/sx
thank you.
jeez....
and can someone tell me the relevance of this:
in 1995 Russia's Academy of Natural Sciences recognized socionics as a discovery, and its creator - Aušra Augustinavičiūtė - was awarded a diploma and a Peter Kapitza medal.
Why, are you in need of company?
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
let's get the thread back on the rail.
can someone tell me if this is relevant:
in 1995 Russia's Academy of Natural Sciences recognized socionics as a discovery, and its creator - Aušra Augustinavičiūtė - was awarded a diploma and a Peter Kapitza medal.
It's a scientific organization with nobel prize winners... hmm something tells me that socionics might be more than astrology if they reward it with a medal...
I just found an article that discusses also Socionics, apparently one of the authors is from the university I'm studying at (University of Amsterdam), so this makes in official!
http://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&source...gOq0dRSPM5lFVg
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
Their site is now here:
http://www.raen.info
However:
The public organization "Russian Academy of Natural Sciences" has no relation to the Russian Academy of Sciences , and criticized a number of academics and staff of Sciences for the fact that some of its members - individuals who are far from science, not having a proper education and recognized scientific publications [3] [4 ] [5] . In particular, Academician Eduard Kruglyakov notes:
This Academy is notorious for that, other than really honored and respected scholars, there are crooks [6] .
http://lurkmore.ru/%D0%A0%D0%90%D0%95%D0%9D
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%...B0%D1%83%D0%BA
Members:
Azhazha, Vladimir G. - Ph.D., Soviet and Russian ufologist
Garyaev, Peter P. - Ph.D., creator of the pseudo-scientific theory of the "wave of the genome"
Petrik, Viktor Ivanovich - inventor, author of a number of pseudo-studies
Chudinov, Valery A. - Ph.D., author of a pseudo- historical and philological studies
Spines, Gennady - co-author of pseudo-scientific theory of " torsion fields "
Fomenko, Anatoly - topologist, fringe historian
Konovalov, Sergey - MD
Last edited by Korpsy Knievel; 04-05-2011 at 01:34 AM. Reason: paste
The "mind" can processes information like a engine processes energy.
This is the fundamental axiom of socionics, as long as this holds, everything else can be derived.
There are very good reason why this is true, because Shrodinger's level of order hypothesis, which successfully predicted DNA as reflecting the thermodynamic nature of the world makes this prediction. If DNA happens to reflect the thermodynamic nature of the world, then the mind is merely a level of order on top of DNA/Life, which will also reflect the previous levels of order below it.
When a person observes reality, his mind forms ideas that will reflect reality, the more these ideas and concepts reflect reality truthfully, the more closely these ideas will behave as the object that actually exist in reality. It is no surprise that as we gain more insight into the actual workings of reality, our information processes will order themselves like reality.
Schrodinger predicted the shape and nature of DNA, and that same prediction applies to the order of the mind and in fact all order. As long as this prediction holds, socionics is worth discussing. If you want to understand this very important work by one of the greatest scientist of the 20th century, you should pick up "What is Life?"
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
