English Wikipedia: Socionics, Interpersonal compatibility etc

[Dmitri Lytov]

Recently a Russian-speaking user of the English Wikipedia wrote to me and complained on vandalization of some socionics-relevant topics. He wrote that some people (probably MBTI adherents) destroy all links to Socionics in MBTI-related articles and proposed to discuss this problem with the Administration Board of the English Wikipedia.

Well, I have doubts if this can help. Wikipedia is not a proper place for promotion of anything, including Socionics, and these deletion wars may be important for just a couple of people while the rest of the world may simply be ignorant about them.

However, I decided to act a different way. I created an article called Interpersonal compatibility in the English Wikipedia. Although it is fairly critical towards socionics, it presenta an overview of several theories related to interpersonal compatibility. I think it will be a better way to clarify matters about Socionics in the English Wikipedia.

Can anybody help me extend this article?

[aestrivex]

Recently a Russian-speaking user of the English Wikipedia wrote to me and complained on vandalization of some socionics-relevant topics. He wrote that some people (probably MBTI adherents) destroy all links to Socionics in MBTI-related articles and proposed to discuss this problem with the Administration Board of the English Wikipedia.

Well, I have doubts if this can help. Wikipedia is not a proper place for promotion of anything, including Socionics, and these deletion wars may be important for just a couple of people while the rest of the world may simply be ignorant about them.

However, I decided to act a different way. I created an article called Interpersonal compatibility in the English Wikipedia. Although it is fairly critical towards socionics, it presenta an overview of several theories related to interpersonal compatibility. I think it will be a better way to clarify matters about Socionics in the English Wikipedia.

Can anybody help me extend this article?

i have not been following this, but there is some truth to the suggestion that socionics should not be included in a discussion of MBTI (other than as "see also" material). i created all of the links between socionics/MBTI articles (ie INTJ/LII) because common notation is used in all of them, which i think is reasonable.


also, MBTI is far more widely known than socionics, and consequently an interpersonal compatibility article is not the solution. in fact, an interpersonality compatibility article is likely original research, which is not appropriate in wikipedia.

the more appropriate solution is to ensure that all MBTI pages have "see also" sections for socionics, ie in case the person was really looking for ILI but searched for INTp and got redirected to the INTP page. these they mostly do.

[tcaudilllg]

You blindsided me with the creation of that article, Dmitri. Excellent solution.

I'll head on down to the Socionics Wikipedia article and bust some heads, so to speak.

[Dmitri Lytov]

in fact, an interpersonality compatibility article is likely original research, which is not appropriate in wikipedia.

Well, it is not original research. The problem is that in the English-speaking world the research of interpersonal compatibility is not a subject of popular psychological literature yet. However, there are specialized articles on this subject in English and German. I have some.

In fact, even MBTI adherents proposed some theories of intertype compatibility, but they all a) were post-socionic, b) disagreed with each other.

[tcaudilllg]

I've looked and I don't see anything. Lots of edits by "8088" but none which speak of MBTI-adherence. I think this was just an anti-Ganin enthusiast who wanted to speak his mind. Maybe the article should be put on protect though, because it's not like we're going to edit it further anyway, are we?

[aestrivex]

Maybe the article should be put on protect though

no.

[aestrivex]

Well, it is not original research. The problem is that in the English-speaking world the research of interpersonal compatibility is not a subject of popular psychological literature yet. However, there are specialized articles on this subject in English and German. I have some.

well, all right i guess, as long as the topic is in basic form treated from a non-socionics standpoint. i suppose it seems intuitively as though the topic is not a field of considerable reputable study. if you have sources, feel free to use them.

In fact, even MBTI adherents proposed some theories of intertype compatibility, but they all a) were post-socionic, b) disagreed with each other.

why is that relevant? my understanding is that any such theories are more or less completely nonexistent within MBTI. are these MBTI intertype theories notable or attributable?

[tcaudilllg]

no.

Why not? What else do you plan to add? The existing article hadn't been edited in months. The only thing to add is links.

[Dmitri Lytov]

why is that relevant? my understanding is that any such theories are more or less completely nonexistent within MBTI. are these MBTI intertype theories notable or attributable?

They are known within their own schools. I noticed some of them in the Interpersonal compatibility article (with respective links).

[aestrivex]

They are known within their own schools. I noticed some of them in the Interpersonal compatibility article (with respective links).

something like typelogic's correlations don't show up anywhere else, are only attributable to typelogic, and have no apparent basis. why would typelogic's correlations be notable for inclusion? similarly for the MBTI dating site that you gave.

[aestrivex]

Why not? What else do you plan to add? The existing article hadn't been edited in months. The only thing to add is links.

on what basis should the article be protected? do you know why articles are protected? this is not a significant vandal article and there is no reason to implement drastic policies on the basis of one vandal.

[tcaudilllg]

on what basis should the article be protected? do you know why articles are protected? this is not a significant vandal article and there is no reason to implement drastic policies on the basis of one vandal.

Nevermind.

[Rick]

Hey, DmitrY. Sorry for not responding sooner. Is your request still relevant? Also, I was approached by the same Russian user.

[Dmitri Lytov]

Hey, DmitrY. Sorry for not responding sooner. Is your request still relevant? Also, I was approached by the same Russian user.

Rick, thanks for correction and improvement of the article.