Journal of Socionics

[mu4]

One of the goals in the establishing this forum was the continued promotion of socionics in the English speaking world. One of the steps in doing this is to publish a journal of original socionics content/commentary on a regular basis. In that interest, I am starting that journal and a process of submission to that journal which will be edited by the moderation staff of the 16types.info.

As of right now, the timeline for the Journal is going to be once a year, with the first group of articles to be published on 3/15/2013.

[The Ineffable]

Anything else than quantity, variety and formal accomplishment in that jornal? I don't see any guidelines.

[Saberstorm]

It is like a cow catcher for Tcaudilllg. (Or a lymph node)

[mu4]

Anything else than quantity, variety and formal accomplishment in that jornal? I don't see any guidelines.

I will create the guideline and process in due time. I would say anything compatible with Model A would be acceptable, as well as somethings that would be outside of Model A. There is no journal or any original writing being organized in the English speaking world and for this topic to take off, it needs to occur at some level. I do remember you writing a few things that would probably be worthwhile to include, such as your commentaries on some Reinin dichotomies and quadra. If those could be expanded on and edited by the staff here, they would be of sufficient quality and rigor to include. This is just the beginning of the process and ultimately the goal is to produce a high quality product. I don't think this is going to go towards an academic level of review initially, and I think many times academic level of review is a waste of time.

If you have any ideas for submission, send me a pm or just post in this forum.

[Brilliand]

I will create the guideline and process in due time. I would say anything compatible with Model A would be acceptable, as well as somethings that would be outside of Model A. There is no journal or any original writing being organized in the English speaking world and for this topic to take off, it needs to occur at some level. I do remember you writing a few things that would probably be worthwhile to include, such as your commentaries on some Reinin dichotomies and quadra. If those could be expanded on and edited by the staff here, they would be of sufficient quality and rigor to include. This is just the beginning of the process and ultimately the goal is to produce a high quality product. I don't think this is going to go towards an academic level of review initially, and I think many times academic level of review is a waste of time.

If you have any ideas for submission, send me a pm or just post in this forum.

This essay of mine was tolerable: On static and dynamic functions

I'm not sure I'd call it completely canonical, but as musings go, it's a pretty good one.

I wrote two other interesting essays at around the same time, though I hold them in less esteem:
On conflict: The PoLR and HA
Holographic Supervision

[Absurd]

Politico’s Ben Smith attemps to drill down into the Wall Street Journal‘s decision to put a picture of Supreme Court nominee and Elena Kagan playing softball on its cover this morning. Were the Journal‘s editors trying to send its readers a message?

“If you turn the photo upside down, reverse the pixilation and simultaneously listen to Abbey Road backwards, while reading Roland Barthes, you will indeed find a very subtle hidden message,” said Journal spokeswoman Ashley Huston.

“I think your question is absurd,” said Journal Deputy Managing Editor Alan Murray in a separate email.

We have a feeling Robert Thomson had something to do with the first comment. Sounds just like him! And, Mr. Murray, is that question really so absurd? Sometimes a photo of a rumored lesbian playing softball is just a photo of a rumored lesbian playing softball. And sometimes it isn’t.

[tcaudilllg]

It won't matter. This place will never take off.

[ArchonAlarion]

Would it be a good idea to have some democratic elements to the compilation? So, either one person/small group could select the articles OR they could be submitted and voted for and selected based on popularity.

There could also be mix, where Hkkmr (or whoever is helping him) selects a portion of the articles and the rest are then voted on. A democratically chosen portion could solve a lot of squabbling issues right off because the forum administration is not in complete control of the journal's content (within reason, troll articles can be vetoed).

*edit: Practically speaking, I think allowing people to vote on articles would make it more likely that people read them.

[mu4]

Would it be a good idea to have some democratic elements to the compilation? So, either one person/small group could select the articles OR they could be submitted and voted for and selected based on popularity.

There could also be mix, where Hkkmr (or whoever is helping him) selects a portion of the articles and the rest are then voted on. A democratically chosen portion could solve a lot of squabbling issues right off because the forum administration is not in complete control of the journal's content (within reason, troll articles can be vetoed).

*edit: Practically speaking, I think allowing people to vote on articles would make it more likely that people read them.

I think there could be a readers choice section like many sites offer. I think through the process of getting the content to the quality it needs to be, it would remove most of the squabbling and troll content.

[Capitalist Pig]

.

lol

[ClownsandEntropy]

I think making it an annual journal is a bit hopeful, I can imagine there being lots of flame wars about what exactly gets through which make it difficult to do every year. I guess you'll just allow the "non-controversial" writings (i.e. the great majority of people said it seemed reasonable) to get through.

In what format are we releasing this magazine?

[mu4]

I think making it an annual journal is a bit hopeful, I can imagine there being lots of flame wars about what exactly gets through which make it difficult to do every year. I guess you'll just allow the "non-controversial" writings (i.e. the great majority of people said it seemed reasonable) to get through.

In what format are we releasing this magazine?

E-journal in PDF format. The idea is to have a easily distributed product which could be provided for anyone interested.

[tcaudilllg]

Instead of creating a brazen unauthorized journal of socionics, why not integrate socionics into analytic psychology?

[Brilliand]

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?

[Korpsy Knievel]

E-journal in PDF format. The idea is to have a easily distributed product which could be provided for anyone interested.

Oh, like a website, perhaps even a wiki.

[Creepy-male]

I see one inevitable issue and that is whoever is in charge of the journal will either censor things or not censor them. I'm guessing part of your job as "moderators" will be to censor entries to only those which you think best represents the desired image of the journal.

What will be considered as the current intellectual paradigm of which to base entries to journal off of. Could you provide a baseline of some sort as to what is considered "compatible with Model A", perhaps some resources or links which can give an aspiring person an idea of what kind of journal one would be submitting entries to.

[tcaudilllg]

Unauthorized by who? Why should we need authorization from someone else?

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.

[ClownsandEntropy]

Instead of creating a brazen unauthorized journal of socionics, why not integrate socionics into analytic psychology?

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.

[Saberstorm]

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.

[tcaudilllg]

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).

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.

[Creepy-male]

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.

[tcaudilllg]

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.

[Saberstorm]

They wouldn't target the journal -- they'd target the people who associated with it. Career destruction.

Take your pills, Grandma!

[Creepy-bg]

Neuroscientist

[The Ineffable]

Take your pills, Grandma!

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.

[Saberstorm]

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.

Our competitor is Meyers Briggs - hardly an academic power to be feared. Any academic correlation with Socionics is fine, even if they studied it and are "ripping it off." It serves to prove our point and makes it easier to spread the word. Essentially, there is no "power" here. The endeavor of Socionics is not really commercial, and not really academic. It could be repackaged as either, but in doing so you need to “rip it off" in order to let it grow. What I mean is you would need to convert it into the language and methodology of neuroscience or the method and language of modern day Human Resource Management as taught in a business school.

By the nature of intellectual property law, the person or entity that makes that RADICAL conversion (adds value and so on) is the rightful owner - not the originator of the idea. It is who executes it that owns it. It always has been. If the conversion is more conervative, then they might need to aquire a license.

Look at the schisms that exist on this forum such as Astonians and Krigians. They changed Socionics. They could own it if they made enough changes - enough "innovative steps" as it is called in patent law. Any conversion of Socionics into neuroscience would make significant changes to Socionics - enough that Socionics would only be its ancestor.

Only a direct copying of it can be protected.

[tcaudilllg]

Take your pills, Grandma!

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.

[mu4]

Our competitor is Meyers Briggs - hardly an academic power to be feared. Any academic correlation with Socionics is fine, even if they studied it and are "ripping it off." It serves to prove our point and makes it easier to spread the word. Essentially, there is no "power" here. The endeavor of Socionics is not really commercial, and not really academic. It could be repackaged as either, but in doing so you need to “rip it off" in order to let it grow. What I mean is you would need to convert it into the language and methodology of neuroscience or the method and language of modern day Human Resource Management as taught in a business school.

By the nature of intellectual property law, the person or entity that makes that conversion (adds value and so on) is the rightful owner - not the originator of the idea. It is who executes it that owns it. It always has been.

Look at the schisms that exist on this forum such as Astonians and Krigians. They changed Socionics. They could own it if they made enough changes - enough "innovative steps" as it is called in patent law. Any conversion of Socionics into neuroscience would make significant changes to Socionics - enough that Socionics would only be its ancestor.

Only a direct copying of it can be protected.

Pretty much this. Socionics wasn't created in the standard academic or commercial setting, but rather as samizdat. The goal is to give it a shot, see if it's validated or destroyed. MBTI is the major competitor to Socionics and I find it kinda of funny that people are so paranoid about their own reputations or "career". At this point, most of the "theorists" in Socionics are fringe elements of a fringe element. I'm interested in Socionics and I see Model A as a far better version of typology than MBTI. I don't think the alternative models provide comprehensible information regarding typology and I would rather focus on Socionics and promote it as a alternative to MBTI. If you really want to be heard, write good material and explain it clearly. Then keep promoting it with various formats, website/wiki/blog/journal/word of mouth/etc. I believe Socionics to be of a high potential and good material and as long as the efforts are put in to present Socionics to the larger community of interested people, not just academics, it will eventually be proven the better typology.

[tcaudilllg]

Our competitor is Meyers Briggs - hardly an academic power to be feared. Any academic correlation with Socionics is fine, even if they studied it and are "ripping it off." It serves to prove our point and makes it easier to spread the word. Essentially, there is no "power" here. The endeavor of Socionics is not really commercial, and not really academic. It could be repackaged as either, but in doing so you need to “rip it off" in order to let it grow. What I mean is you would need to convert it into the language and methodology of neuroscience or the method and language of modern day Human Resource Management as taught in a business school.

By the nature of intellectual property law, the person or entity that makes that RADICAL conversion (adds value and so on) is the rightful owner - not the originator of the idea. It is who executes it that owns it. It always has been. If the conversion is more conervative, then they might need to aquire a license.

Look at the schisms that exist on this forum such as Astonians and Krigians. They changed Socionics. They could own it if they made enough changes - enough "innovative steps" as it is called in patent law. Any conversion of Socionics into neuroscience would make significant changes to Socionics - enough that Socionics would only be its ancestor.

Only a direct copying of it can be protected.

That was very Gamma of you, and I assure you the alphas are not on board.

It is an ethical issue. People who have something to contribute should be permitted the making of their contribution. The neurologists are claiming the power to judge ideas. This judgement is made without pity and without remorse. They are repeating the mistakes of the Freudians because they are, in essence, the same group. The neurologists see as their enemy the chaos with which people view each other. Most of them have a deep fixation on the causes of racism. It's something that they are wasting time with because in the end society will demand that even the evil be treated with dignity. If they want to go to hell, that's their choice. To deny them that choice is the denial of their free will, their very identity and personage. Most people are content to ignore racists, and beta ST EMs even get a high out of confronting them. The real function of neuroscience is to develop treatments for the dementias. In that regard they are delaying the solution to the problem by not working the socionics community, in particular.

There was a time when MBTI might have been a threat but that's long in the past now. If anything their continued dogmatism fuels the suspicions of the neurologists.

[Saberstorm]

"conervative" FUCK my spelling. Curses!

[Saberstorm]

Pretty much this. Socionics wasn't created in the standard academic or commercial setting, but rather as samizdat. The goal is to give it a shot, see if it's validated or destroyed. MBTI is the major competitor to Socionics and I find it kinda of funny that people are so paranoid about their own reputations or "career". At this point, most of the "theorists" in Socionics are fringe elements of a fringe element. I'm interested in Socionics and I see Model A as a far better version of typology than MBTI. I don't think the alternative models provide comprehensible information regarding typology and I would rather focus on Socionics and promote it as a alternative to MBTI. If you really want to be heard, write good material and explain it clearly. Then keep promoting it with various formats, website/wiki/blog/journal/word of mouth/etc. I believe Socionics to be of a high potential and good material and as long as the efforts are put in to present Socionics to the larger community of interested people, not just academics, it will eventually be proven the better typology.

Samizdat? I looked it up. That means that it had no official existence? Is it used by the Russian army? Any goverment agencies? I was under the impression that it was! I could be wrong! Wow!

[mu4]

Samizdat? I looked it up. That means that it had no official existence? Is it used by the Russian army? Any goverment agencies? I was under the impression that it was! I could be wrong! Wow!

I think in Eastern Europe/Russia, Socionics enjoy a similar(probably smaller) audience as MBTI, with limited academic acceptance. Some history on Augusta.

http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...ugusta,_Aushra

[tcaudilllg]

It's used by Ukrainians, and there was a presentation to the Duma a few years ago. But yeah anything that advocated an identity apart from the state was forbidden in the fmr Soviet.

[tcaudilllg]

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.

Yeah Climategate proved that, didn't it? Interrater reliability means shit when money buys the rating.

Plus some people just don't get it. Malformed functions, probably.

[Brilliand]

That was very Gamma of you, and I assure you the alphas are not on board.

I am completely on board with Saberstorm's ideas here, and view your paranoia about plagiarism as harmful to the popularity of the theory. Everyone who establishes a presence on the Internet does it by giving information away for free, by letting their work spread everywhere. I think I have spoken to you in favor of this before - as nice as getting credit for your work is, any measures to ensure that you get credit severely reduce the power of the Internet to make your work well-known. It isn't worth it to hurt your ideas for your own benefit - especially since the position of main proponent of a highly popular idea comes with some major perks, if you can get in that position.

[tcaudilllg]

I am completely on board with Saberstorm's ideas here, and view your paranoia about plagiarism as harmful to the popularity of the theory. Everyone who establishes a presence on the Internet does it by giving information away for free, by letting their work spread everywhere. I think I have spoken to you in favor of this before - as nice as getting credit for your work is, any measures to ensure that you get credit severely reduce the power of the Internet to make your work well-known. It isn't worth it to hurt your ideas for your own benefit - especially since the position of main proponent of a highly popular idea comes with some major perks, if you can get in that position.

Do you take me for a fool? No, it is you who are the fool. Academic dishonesty is rampant. Studies have affirmed this.

I'm sure you think you can prosper by committing to some radical idea of zero attribution for intellectual effort expended. And as an original proponent, you probably can. Then everyone else, by your morals, must emulate your example whether the conditions are right for it or not. I know the game. You're a radical and that's how radicals operate. I am under no obligation to buy into your strategy if its ultimate fulfillment does not meet my needs.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Academic dishonesty is rampant. Studies have affirmed this.

HAHAHAHAHA

[Brilliand]

Do you take me for a fool? No, it is you who are the fool. Academic dishonesty is rampant. Studies have affirmed this.

I'm sure you think you can prosper by committing to some radical idea of zero attribution for intellectual effort expended. And as an original proponent, you probably can. Then everyone else, by your morals, must emulate your example whether the conditions are right for it or not. I know the game. You're a radical and that's how radicals operate. I am under no obligation to buy into your strategy if its ultimate fulfillment does not meet my needs.

I'm... what? What you're describing does sound like it would work, but I was thinking of Google, Github and XKCD. Anyway, "zero attribution" isn't actually what happens; people trace the ideas back to the original source, because they want more of the same. Then you can ask for donations, sell tutoring services, etc. This business model is really only viable if giving away your work for free doesn't cost you anything (except possibly the opportunity cost of being able to sell the work instead), which is what the Internet provides.

A "zero attribution" situation can arise if someone else manages to consistently copy all of your ideas mere minutes after they're published, but that type of threat tends to be rather obvious and easy to counter, since they're stuck in the position of a passive reactor to whatever you decide to do.

[Saberstorm]

Also, if people wanted more of what you had to say, they would look you up. That is how people become consultants.

[mu4]

Tcaud, you seems to attach your career/life prospect to this study. I think it's unlikely this study will be of that much potential in the near future, I would do something else to further your career/etc.

You can also learn not to threaten people and other things you do to harass people.