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
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
Grigory Reynin, Ph.D. in Psychology, Ph.D. in Socionics
lol
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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