Looking for professors & scholars to support Socionics

[jdiaz5513]

Send me a PM if you're an English-speaking Professor or scholar with published work and thoroughly support Soconics as more fact than fiction.

I am working on a project that will bring Socionics to the forefront of modern psychology in a major way, once everything plays out correctly.

I need supporters that can be taken seriously and make the point clear that this is a very REAL model of human personality.

We're making a move soon. Contact me ASAP if you want to help or know anybody that can. Even if you don't know anyone, there's a good chance you can help in other ways.

It's time to put MBTI out to pasture.

[Capitalist Pig]

Tcaud, stop registering ghost accounts.

[jdiaz5513]

After reading some of tcaud's posts, that comment made me laugh out loud.

No, I assure you this is something entirely different.

I can verify my identity, if you're truly in doubt?

[NewBorn STAR]

Shit i will be with you man !

[Saberstorm]

There is no urgency in any aspect of academia. Meyers-Briggs will just incorporate Socionics into itself, like the borg. You cannot displace the great MBTI!!!!

[Korpsy Knievel]

THIS IS A DIRECT COMMAND FROM PROGRESSIVISM, WITH FULL POWER TO PUNISH AND BAN

[Saberstorm]

What would your research angle be? I think something that would be interesting would be to attack Meyers-Brigg's concept of the gain and loss of energy through introversion / extroversion - you know, what if our energy systems are independent of our core system of information processing?

If a more advanced model of information metabolism could be connected to what could be called "energy metabolism" - such as the DCHN subtype system or perhaps a new version of it that we could lable "EM theory", then we could really get somewhere!

What do you think!!!!

[DirectorAbbie]

Professor or scholar? Hm...I think we have some self-professed scholars.

[mu4]

Good luck, ultimately if you want to see socionics published, you need to do it yourself. I don't see many people who are willing to devote the time to be a professor getting caught up in something like socionics, it can happen, but ultimately most of the individual here are professionals, scientists in other fields who have found a interest in socionics and auto-didacts who have picked it up.

In the future if socionics is known by enough young capable college students perhaps it will capture the mind of this student and gain future exploration. This study is known less then 10 years in the US and it takes time for things to develop. I do firmly believe socionics to be a better system then MBTI, but it will take a good deal of time for things to develop. Until then, one article translation at a time. (thanks to all the translators) @siuntal

[jdiaz5513]

I wouldn't view this as an "attack", per se, on MBTI. In the end we're just on a quest to discover what the truth is behind what makes us tick. MBTI is no villain; it's brought a healthy amount of attention to the concept of personality typing. Now we just have to refine it; which is exactly what I'm doing. The definitive "attack" will be to show statistical relevance and measurable results behind the interactions among people of different types, and that is what I plan to do.

Anyway, I don't intend for this thread to be a discussion on the relevance (or not) of Socionics. I just want to know who's on board for supporting it.

[717495]

Check @Maritsa Darmandzhyan, coauthor for several psychological and physiological works and full time scholar of 10 years at the Socionics Institute. Viable undisputed source in the community. Types me LIE.

[jdiaz5513]

Good luck, ultimately if you want to see socionics published, you need to do it yourself.

That is my eventual goal.

[Beautiful sky]

Check @Maritsa Darmandzhyan, coauthor for several psychological and physiological works and full time scholar of 10 years at the Socionics Institute. Viable undisputed source in the community. Types me LIE.

Thanks Poli, but I'm not interested in a research aside from my own.

[FoxOnStilts]

lol not going to happen. typology is still pop psychology. no one puts any stock into it.

[golden]

I live in NY, I'm not a scholar, a lot of my friends are, but I don't think any of them would be too interested in socionics. I'm curious how you can do any kind of analysis given the problem of valid typing in this theory (i.e., it is not test-driven in the manner of MBTI)--I'm not expecting you to address that here, though. If there is anything I can do to be supportive, you may pm me.

[jdiaz5513]

lol not going to happen. typology is still pop psychology. no one puts any stock into it.

Freud was criticized because psychology was once pseudoscience, but people seem to be putting stock into it now. It takes courage to break new ground.

[DirectorAbbie]

If you find a way to stab MBTI in the gut with a size 2 knitting needle, look me up.

[FoxOnStilts]

Freud was criticized because psychology was once pseudoscience, but people seem to be putting stock into it now. It takes courage to break new ground.

Keep us updated on how you do then, but I won't be holding my breath for you. If you really want to do it, you'll have to be doing it yourself with that triforce of courage.

[The Ineffable]

Tcaud, stop registering ghost accounts.

Tcaud never sounds like an LIE.

[mu4]

Socionics isn't pop psychology, because it's not "pop", if it was pop psychology, you could get a degree write a book, get some reader, etc.

Plenty of pop psychology out there have a vastly bigger audience then socionics, See "the secret".

If socionics was trying to be a pop psychology, it could develop a marketing mechanism that could simply sell it and promote it without any regard to its effectiveness or truth, and likely it has the capacity to be somewhat successful because people seem to dig this stuff. Socionics is too complicated, relies on concepts like information processing and does not provide much of a payoff except maybe duality and the ability to determine the quality of relationships some of the time. It's not a get rich or whatever you want in life scheme, it's far more ambivalent about the possibility of success.

I find socionics interesting because it converges with what I've learned in computer science and physics and provides a adequate explanation for the emergence of the mind and a general model for the variation that has arose in information preference between different individuals.

Ultimately what socionics needs is not promotion, although that is useful, it needs a objective mechanism to differentiate and categorize individuals. One that does not rely on self-reporting(about one's type) but one which does rely on the information reported by the individual(speech acts, communicative acts). We live in a era of dramatic changes in computing, and this is a study that can be aided greatly by the technology we currently have. It is here a somewhat objective mechanism can be found, although likely not the only mechanism. The technology is being used today by the biggest corporations in the world, and if you have a knowledge of this technology as well as the ability to design and create these systems, your opportunities are very lucrative. Unfortunately there may be a few million people in the world with knowledge of the basics concerning this technology, with likely less then 100,000 individuals(maybe even far less) capable of developing such a system. Unfortunately I'm not one of them but I hope to acquire this knowledge and I've found most people either don't know, don't care or don't have the capacity to gain this level of expertise.

This is not easy.

[The Ineffable]

hkkmr, I agree with you.
---

@jdiaz5513: please prove that Socionics is "REAL" and tell us the reasons why one should help you in imposing it on the market to the detriment of MBTI. On what grounds do you make that claim and what's your justification in making it prevail over other systems? It must be something sound which I haven't read from you...

Anyway, I don't intend for this thread to be a discussion on the relevance (or not) of Socionics. I just want to know who's on board for supporting it.

Well you should! That's the most important factor to succeed in your purpose, you can't work on making something "real", unless it's man-made. If it's all about the business, or establishing an authority in the field, then I am fine with it, but if your monumental vision overlooks this necessary condition, your whole pretense of seeking the truth is a complete sham.

[Absurd]

You're in the right place, I happen to be a professor of socionics.

[Revan]

Send me a PM if you're an English-speaking Professor or scholar with published work and thoroughly support Soconics as more fact than fiction.

I am working on a project that will bring Socionics to the forefront of modern psychology in a major way, once everything plays out correctly.

I need supporters that can be taken seriously and make the point clear that this is a very REAL model of human personality.

We're making a move soon. Contact me ASAP if you want to help or know anybody that can. Even if you don't know anyone, there's a good chance you can help in other ways.

It's time to put MBTI out to pasture.

A noble effort you are making, sir. Unfortunately you are looking in the wrong place. You will find no professor, scholar, or any kind of professional here. You can find some "interesting" people here, but not

much more than that. If you are serious about attempting to introduce Socionics into modern psychological research and practice, then that is the just the place to go. You will want to contact actual

scholars and professionals to introduce it to them (preferably ones that are already familiar with MBTI, but it's not completely necessary). It is possible that you will find a handful of individuals that would

take an interest. It doesn't seem too far-fetched to me that at least a couple people would find some value in it. Even if it does gain some popularity, don't think that the greater scientific population will

accept it. At the moment Empiricism reigns supreme and everything is subjected to its harsh scrutiny. Aka if there is no evidence and it cannot be measured, it does not exist.

[Revan]

You seem knowledgeable. So mind explaining why this is - is it a lack of funding which fuels the current reign of empiricism?

Well there's a long (kind of boring) philosophical history behind it. As for the modern scientific community's current embracing of empiricism; it stems from the simple demand of tangible evidence produced to support theories. With emphasis on tangible (things that can be perceived via the 5 senses) evidence that can be measured experimentally and replicated with the same results. Perhaps a lack of funding could explain why scientists are primarily staying within "practical" limits, but for the sake of cogency people want things that are proven and known to work. Science wants to stay away from so-called "explanatory fictions" and wants to stick to the facts.

[Saberstorm]

This whole effort is for people seeking a hobby, not a profession.

[Absurd]

Oh behave, Saberstorm, you won't graduate with honors from my school of Socionics if you keep this up.

[mu4]

A noble effort you are making, sir. Unfortunately you are looking in the wrong place. You will find no professor, scholar, or any kind of professional here. You can find some "interesting" people here, but not

much more than that. If you are serious about attempting to introduce Socionics into modern psychological research and practice, then that is the just the place to go. You will want to contact actual

scholars and professionals to introduce it to them (preferably ones that are already familiar with MBTI, but it's not completely necessary). It is possible that you will find a handful of individuals that would

take an interest. It doesn't seem too far-fetched to me that at least a couple people would find some value in it. Even if it does gain some popularity, don't think that the greater scientific population will

accept it. At the moment Empiricism reigns supreme and everything is subjected to its harsh scrutiny. Aka if there is no evidence and it cannot be measured, it does not exist.

Socionics is theoretically measurable and relationship quality can be assessed objectively. I've already provided a explanation of the rough mechanisms of analysis, the problem is of course time/money/talent.

The openness to this idea is low as it is foreign and not established as an academic study even in foreign environments, clouded in Jungian terminology(which isn't accepted scientifically).

The probability of a large number of professors or scholar getting involved in socionics at a substantive level in the western world is low at the moment,

There are many scholars and professionals and even future professors here. WorkaholicsAnon is a medical doctor, I(and others) am a professional and Octo is a grad student and scientist, heath is a scientist. Kim is a teacher at the college level, as have been other individuals here. Certainly the intelligence to do science and do academic work is available.

Many of the individuals who have been here for a long time are professionals and/or individuals with post graduate degrees. To say that scholars or professionals aren't here seriously is underestimating the individuals in the community.

It takes a long time, it is not easy. The technology to do the measurement/analysis of this information is barely 15 years old and the number of people who have the talent to do this is very small.

[Revan]

Very well. Do you think certain types and/or whole quadras were prevalent in causing the current philosophical stance on science to come about? And the reason why I mentioned funding is because I have read that it is like I said it was (funding constrains what research can be undertaken a lot).

Well I have never thought of it in terms of Socionics, but if I had to guess I would think that the Gamma and possibly Beta quadras could have had something to do with it. Like I said funding could definitely be a part of it, but the root of empiricism dates very far back. There has always been a great debate over Rationalism vs Empiricism. With empiricism taking the forefront due to its focus on data that can be recorded, measured, and tested experimentally based on the scientific method; a bottom-up approach.

[Revan]

I jus wonder exactly when empiricism got the upperhand as of late. the fundng problems were getting worse by 1980s I think. And like you said the Rationalism vs Empiricism debate has been going for a long time. For some reason I can't shake the feeling that empiricism got its current upperhand after logical positivism and the post-WW2 debacle.

Nice avatar btw.

I think empiricism had the upperhand for a while. At least in the areas of science and research. I believe math is one of the few rationalist fields left. When I think of modern science and empiricism I get a distinct Te vibe from them (efficiency, practical thinking, etc) so it is very likely that funding issues are and have restricted the diversity of research. And logical positivism definitely has had an influence on the current scientific paradigm. What's interesting is that logical positivism is somewhat a blend of empiricism and rationalism, so it's possible that we're heading towards a reconciliation of the two philosophies.

Thanks, I'm an ultra-mega star wars fan/nerd

[jdiaz5513]

Empiricism has definitely quenched the amount of different branches scientific theory can take these days. Science today leans itself towards absolute fact, and things that are provable beyond doubt. Not that it's a terrible thing, but I feel it slows down innovation a good bit. Risky/non-profitable theorems are almost always discarded until they're the only option left. Scientists have to eat, right?

However, on that note, I can and will provide empirical proof that Socionics is something real and has a measurable impact on society. My wager is that the impact is actually far greater and has implications in way more aspects of life than we currently believe. Only once the numbers come in and more people are aware of their types can I actually prove this, though.

Everyone says the biggest obstacle is finding a way to measure/quantify someone's type. What if I told you that obstacle has already been overcome? I have the talent, am donating the time, and know how to get the money to take it further.

I know it sounds like a lofty claim and I'd love to back it up, but I can't give out any more information at the moment.

This thread has been very helpful so far. It's good to know how the community feels about the whole thing; even if you're not a professor everyone's voice is valuable.

As my project moves along I'll keep coming back to this forum for feedback and volunteers.

[1981slater]