Results 1 to 40 of 51

Thread: socionics research journals

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,418
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default 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

  2. #2
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,937
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

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

    lol

  3. #3
    :popcorn: Capitalist Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,264
    Mentioned
    166 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    Grigory Reynin, Ph.D. in Psychology, Ph.D. in Socionics

    lol
    haha, I know right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bardia View Post
    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.
    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.

  4. #4
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,418
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Capitalist Pig View Post
    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.

  5. #5
    :popcorn: Capitalist Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,264
    Mentioned
    166 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno View Post
    there are probably a lot of false certifications around of numerous branches. That doesn't immediately make that branche unscientific.
    But the entire "branch" often isn't made up entirely out of thin air.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno View Post
    Socionics meets a lot of criteria for the demarcation problem to be called scientific.
    No, it hasn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno View Post
    MBTI has been proven with scientific tests many times. Why would socionics be different.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno View Post
    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.
    Yeah, I'll get right on that.

  6. #6
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,418
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Capitalist Pig View Post
    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.
    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

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,577
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Capitalist Pig View Post
    No, it hasn't.
    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.

  8. #8
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,418
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    where da controlled experimentz at?
    click any of the left side journals and many are named under 'research'.

  9. #9
    :popcorn: Capitalist Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,264
    Mentioned
    166 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.

  10. #10
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,418
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Capitalist Pig View Post
    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)

  11. #11
    :popcorn: Capitalist Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,264
    Mentioned
    166 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.

  12. #12
    Grand Inquisitor Bardia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    ESI
    Posts
    1,251
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Capitalist Pig View Post
    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.
    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

  13. #13
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    8,161
    Mentioned
    722 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Capitalist Pig View Post
    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..

    SOOOOOOO IRONIC...


  14. #14
    :popcorn: Capitalist Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,264
    Mentioned
    166 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hkkmr View Post
    SOOOOOOO IRONIC...


  15. #15
    expired Lotus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    TIM
    Se/Ni sx/sp
    Posts
    4,492
    Mentioned
    100 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •