Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-09-16/Socionics

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Socionics
Status	Closed
Request date	00:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	(unconfirmed, proposed) User:Rmcnew User:Tcaudilllg User:MichaelExe User:Rick DeLong User:RudieBoy
Mediator(s)	Manning
Comment	Mediation terminated, case accepted by Arbcom

Request details

Where is the dispute?

Throughout Talk:Socionics.

Who is involved?

In order of importance in the dispute, imo:

• User:Rmcnew
• User:Tcaudilllg
• User:MichaelExe
• User:Rick DeLong
• User:RudieBoy

What is the dispute?

Rmcnew concluded that socionics is hermeticism and a protoscience, but hasn't given any direct support for this conclusion. He and Tcaudilllg are losing logic in their arguments, and are taking things more and more personally. I (User:MichaelExe) have been trying to mediate, unsuccessfully, and Rick DeLong and RudieBoy have questioned Rmcnew's arguments, but he refuses to back down.

I disagree with the claim of this dispute. I have not concluded anything about socionics concerning hermeticism and socionics. I have, however, engaged in lengthy speculative discussion about this with the editors, who I believe to be disagreeing on the basis that they have an understanding (personal filter) of socionics according to different values, and are therefore failing to neutrally represent socionics on account of these filters. I believe in neutrality, for neutrality sake. I think the other editors are simply not recognizing the neutrality in seeing things in ways that are opposite to western cultural values, which they can not do, because they don't realize that is the case. --Rmcnew (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

What would you like to change about this?

We need to come to a consensus.

I agree that all editors should come to a consesus, but it should be a consensus that truly promotes neutrality, credibility, and a quality wikipedia article. I disagree with this subtly conveyed "consensus" that singleing out and bullying rmcnew into submitting to the views of other editors equals consensus. I think that the editors should first understand why I am doing what I am doing. I believe that it is the other way around, that a couple of the other editors are unintentionally promoteing their own unneutral viewpoint, and then claiming that I have an unneutral viewpoint. I only want neutrality. I have already argued my stance below. --Rmcnew (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point on neutrality, and agree completely, but most of your sources are not credible, and/or do not provide direct support for what you've been arguing. Whether you're right or wrong is beside the point. MichaelExe (talk) 19:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

How do you think we can help?

The first step is to convince Rmcnew to adhere to wikipedia's content policies (Wikipedia:No_original_research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliability and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view).

I completely and utterly object to being singled out. I have given my arguments below. --Rmcnew (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC) Comments since moved to the discussion page.Manning (talk) 00:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Mediator notes

I have reviewed the relevant sections of the talk page and am waiting for acceptance of the mediation by the concerned parties. Manning (talk) 05:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Case has been accepted by two of the parties and I have deemed this sufficient. (Note - informal mediation permits non-acceptance of all parties. In the event this moves to formal mediation, acceptance by all parties is required to proceed).

Administrative notes

Substantial discussion was excised from this page and moved to Talk. This is a matter of process and is not a judgement on the merits of the arguments.

Discussion

Possible Solution

I'll check back every day or two and take a look at the references (so make sure you cite properly). If the sources are unreliable, I'll remove them, but leave the content there to give the chance to the editor to find better sources. If within a week, no reliable sources are added, we can remove the content. So reverts are only for obvious spam/vandalism. MichaelExe (talk) 19:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Or, we can discuss whatever we intend to add before editing, so we can all look over the reliability of the links. MichaelExe (talk) 20:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me ... should just cite properly in that event. --Rmcnew (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Acceptance of Mediator

1. If the parties to the mediation accept Manning as the mediator, please indicate here.

Fine by me. --Rmcnew (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes please. XP MichaelExe (talk) 19:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Mediation procedure discussion

Initial comments by Manning (Mediator)

I have excised a considerable amount of discussion that took place, leaving only a few comments which fleshed out the basic dispute and solution paragraphs. (Excised material was moved to the discussion page). This is NOT a value assessment of the content that was posted, and is merely a matter of mediation procedure.

Mediation is NOT a freeform discussion of the issues. Mediation is usually employed because freeform discussion has broken down, and hence its approach is different. It is my primary intention to keep the discussion calm and focused.

My next task will be to conduct some further investigation into the background of this case. After that I will ask some targeted questions (aimed at specific users). I would be grateful if all other users refrain from interjecting in those circumstances. I would also be grateful if editors refrained from using ALL CAPS, as this is perceived as uncivil shouting on Wikipedia.

Regards Manning (talk) 00:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Question 1 for Rmcnew

In a comment you made (since moved to here) you make the following statement: "Original research and lack of credible sources in entire sections is rampant throughout the whole article". Could you please provide some evidence to support that statement. Manning (talk) 01:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are a zillion examples. Various places in the article make a number of claims that have no source backing whatsoever, many of which sound like opinions, and there are places in the article where Ausura Augusta is framed as some sort of socionics "prophet" and given much more credence in than she actually should. I'll post more examples when I have time. --Rmcnew (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Original research # 1

This whole paragraph is unsourced original research -

"Our world is populated by entities of various kinds, each of which have defining characteristics and properties. The brain processes incoming data in its quest for understanding of the world: it identifies relationships between these datum and thus, categorizes them as a recognizable phenomena for easy reference. As an example, consider the case of a child who sees an apple for the first time. If they have been previously taught that the color qualia we associate with "red" is red, then will they will notice that the color of the apple is red. They have recalled the color red upon being confronted with red colors. Now imagine that the child has not yet been instructed on the color red. They simply see a different color than they have seen before. They have two options: to infer the existence of a new color, or to dismiss its lack of recognizable color by saying there is no color. Barring these, the child could also choose to assert that it is of a previously recognized color, perhaps the color nearest in hue to what they now see. Whatever the child's determination, the apple's color qualia will be remembered as a unique concept in its own right, and will be referred to whenever that specific qualia is again encountered. In essence, a "copy" of the color data has been set aside for future reference, to be recalled when faced with familiar data. These "reference copies" are what we refer to when we speak of "information", and the process of creating the copy is what Augustinavičiūtė called "information metabolism"".

Original research # 2

The categories are arranged into three mutually exclusive pairs (dichotomies). You cannot, for example, observe both an entities' internal and external characteristics at once, only in alternation. The exclusivity rule yields eight permutations in total. Although the categorization is conducted outside of our awareness, a given aspect can be successfully corresponded with its element through a technique of intuitive abstraction. This abstraction, called "aspect analysis", weighs the characteristics of the aspect considered between each of the three pairs, using the intuitive meaning of the characteristics as a vise by which to identify which element the aspect is "most like". The technique allows that a person's speech be scrutinized for usage of specific aspects, and the frequency of their use of elements quantitatively gauged. This method, called "semantic analysis", has resulted in some of the most significant and persuasive discoveries in socionics.

Original research # 3

The following paragraph is purely speculative. No one really knows exactly how the function shapes came into socionics theory, and from where they were derived, though evidence points to hermeticism or tantra philosophy influence. The source that was added is questionable.

"To impress upon her students that what was being spoken of were strictly intuitive abstractions, Augustinavičiūtė introduced geometric symbols for each information element."

And also, "Alexander Boukalov argues that the information elements are only the latest development in a far older theory of intuitive abstractions. (see tattvas)"

This statement initially had no source, back when I challenged its accuracy someone, I think Tcaulldig, had as a result added a source that sounds credible, but there is no way to prove that the book ever adresses this. I still question the accuracy for this statement in that there is currently no way to prove that ausura augusta book "the dual nature of man" gives any credit that it was augusta who came up with the function shapes, that are similar to tattwas. The book is not available in professionally translated english, and never has been translated. It is still a matter of speculation whether or not ausura augusta came up with them, they were bukalov's or someone else's idea to add them, or that they borrowed the shapes from studying tantra buddhism or from hermeticism. In any case, they came from somewhere. It is too speculative of an idea to claim that it was solely ausura augusta who came up with them.

Original research # 4

The following is unsourced original research

Each of these functions can be in extraverted [Jung used 'extra',[7] but not 'extro'] or introverted form. If the dominant function in psychological type is extraverted - the type is extraverted; if the dominant function is introverted - the type is introverted.

Sensation and intuition are called irrational or perceiving functions, and are thus named because unlike the rational or judging functions (i.e., thinking and feeling), they deal with raw perception of reality rather than the interpretation of it. If the dominant function is rational - the type is rational, if the dominant function is irrational - the type is irrational.

Beside the dominant function, there is the auxiliary function. If dominant function is extraverted, auxiliary is introverted; and vice versa, if dominant function is introverted, auxiliary is extraverted. If dominant function is rational, auxiliary is irrational; and vice versa, if dominant function is irrational, auxiliary is rational. For example, if dominant function is extraverted intuition, then auxiliary function can be introverted thinking or introverted feeling (there are 2 types with dominant extraverted intuition).

Jung's model of psychological type has all 4 functions (but with no account taken of their extraverted/introverted forms). Jung believed that dominant function is the most conscious, followed by auxiliary (2nd) function, tertiary (3rd) function, and inferior (4th) function. Jung's tertiary function has the same parameters extraverted/introverted and rational/irrational as at auxiliary function, and it is another function in pair of rational or irrational functions (for example, if auxiliary function is introverted thinking, then tertiary function is introverted feeling). Inferior function has the same parameter rational/irrational as at dominant function, and other extraverted/introverted parameter, and it is another function in pair of rational or irrational functions (for example, if dominant function is extraverted intuition, then inferior function is introverted sensation).

For example, Jung's model for 2 types: extraverted intuitive-thinking (ILE) and introverted feeling-sensory (ESI)

Functions dominant function auxiliary function tertiary function inferior function ILE extraverted intuition introverted thinking introverted feeling introverted sensation ESI introverted feeling extraverted sensation extraverted intuition extraverted thinking

By Jung's rules 16 psychological types exist. But in his book "Psychological Types" he described in detail only 8 types, distinguished by the eight possible dominant functions.

Original research # 5

A couple of other paragraphs lack sources entirely. Note that I don't necessarily dispute the information in these paragraphs, but I believe them to constitute as origional research until they are justified and rewritten according to credible sources.

Original research no longer exists

I have removed a signifigant portion of what I listed above as origional research, includeing what could be arguably origional research from myself, and replaced the information with what is stated in the russian language wikipedia article. This is to cut down on the mass amount of origional research in the article. --Rmcnew (talk) 03:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Some comments on the dispute by Rick DeLong

Before I begin let me state that I am less motivated to present published sources for my points of view than McNew and that my perspective comes from direct observation of the socionics community over 7 years spent in Kiev, Ukraine. I do not believe in the proposed connection to the tattwas described by McNew, whereby the socionics symbols were taken from ancient esoteric sources. First, I have never heard anything remotely similar in all my years of hearing about socionics in Ukraine, during which I heard all sorts of proposed connections to astrology and other nonscientific fields. I believe the shapes chosen by Augusta are universal enough that they did not necessarily have to derive from another source. Give me a break -- circles, triangles, and squares are UNIVERSAL symbols. The ONE truly "original" symbol in socionics is the square with a corner missing, and this has no analogy among the tattwa symbols McNew presented.

Next, what McNew is suggesting -- as I understand it -- is that socionics was developed using mystic/esoteric sources. In defense of this claim he cites Russian language articles that mention chakras and astrology. However, these demonstrate only that some socionists are trying to make connections between socionics and the aforementioned areas of knowledge. They do not prove that socionics was derived from esoteric sources. I personally can discern no philosophical influence from esoteric or mystical sources in the core concepts of socionics, such as the information metabolism, psychological functions, and intertype interaction. Even if they existed, esoteric sources for socionic theory exert no practical influence on socionics.

In my opinion, the reason that some socionists try to make connections to astrology and other obscure fields is that a lot of people (a sizeable minority) who are drawn to socionics in Russia and Ukraine are also drawn to other nonacademic, nonscientific fields of "knowledge." Those who are into science and academic disciplines, in turn, make connections to psychological research, cybernetics, informatics, etc.

Yes, there is a slight tension between these two groups. No, there is no conspiracy to hide the esoteric origins of socionics. What would the motivation of such a conspiracy be? (especially since there is so little money or power to be gained from socionics). The real tension in socionics in Russia and Ukraine is between those who want to develop socionics after an academic model and those who purposely or inadvertently saboteuge the effort by developing cult-like followings, by claiming exclusive skills or knowledge, or through basic stupidity.

I can't help putting in my personal opinion here. I think socionics is doomed from the outset to remain a kind of popular philosophical system such as Objectivism and cannot "progress" to become a science because it rests fundamentally on ideas, not on data. Scientists might use some ideas from socionics to spur their search for data and new syntheses, but they will rewrite and reframe everything in a completely new, "nonsocionic" way.

Is socionics notable? Of course -- in the Russian speaking world. It is a significant cultural phenomenon there. I would compare it to the Objectivist movement in terms of popularity and influence. --Rick DeLong (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

So there you have it. There is no link between esoterism and socionics: it's just something McNew made up. So there ya go. Tcaudilllg (talk) 23:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Rick, how would you design this article? What is the minimum a person needs to know, from reading this article, to go on the16types.info and have a clue about what is being said? Tcaudilllg (talk) 00:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Response to Rick Dulong comments on the dispute

Rick and I both share similar views concerning socionics. Though I wouldn't necessarily say that our views are one, and I disagree with him about certain things. And while we do agree that esotericism is present in socionics to some degree, and that socionics is both pseudoscience and protoscience, the difference is that Rick isn't going to do anything to appears to be an academic or objective analysis of socionics, meaning that he comes off like an apologistic proponent. I look at it academically. And while we both agree that socionics is based on outdated scientific techniques (pseudoscientific and protoscientific techniques), Rick has not come to any conclusions past what he has learned experentially. I do indeed lack this experience, but then I have the will to look at the past. He could be very right about some things with socionics as they are now, but maybe not so much about back when. I may be right about way back when, but maybe not so much as socionics stands now.

Tcaulldig on the other hand usually has absolutly nothing good to offer qualitywise, and tends to insert alot of cut-and-dry remarks.

Neither Rick Dulong or Tcaulldig have done much to present any sources. It is also not a matter of me having a side, and those two having a side. It is a matter of socionics credibility on wikipedia in general. Either we all produce credible sources, or socionics does not deserve a place on wikipedia. I can totally see some editors attempting to frame that there are "sides" conflicting between myself and some other editors, post no sources whatsoever, and then try to get rid of the one person who has been attempting to do anything with finding viable sources. I can also see the same editors attempting to suppress leigitmate views in socionics theory again that have been there from the foundation, such as Ausura Augustas belief in and supposedly scientific and speculative ventures into the world of chakras. It would be dishonest to try to hide that from people. Rick Dulong has admitted that this is the case before. Though, I don't think he realizes (or wants to admit) that the way she links them is blazeingly similar to the way some proponents of some religions link the tattwas to the human body. It doesn't surprise me that he would attempt to disassociate socionics from those religions. He certainly has an apologetic viewpoint in favor of socionics as a potential science (protoscience).

In relation to how many links have been posted, in varying degrees of credibility, it would be better to preview all of the links before considering anyones points on the matter. For example, Rick Dulong attempts to disassociate the tattwas from the socionics functions by claiming that the shapes are universal symbols, which is true, but doesn't really explain anything in the light of the fact that there is a credible socionics article where the tattwas, chakras, and socionic functions are compared together. To me, that article is much more credible than Rick Dulong's statement that the functions are universal symbols. That is just his opinion on the matter. I think he is trying way too hard to disassociate socionics from the mess of esotericism floating around by some extreme proponents, while yet maintaining some respect for the anti-esoteric view in socionics theory and self integrity by making a few omisions to the esotericism that is present. So far he hasn't proven his opinion to be backed up by anything. --Rmcnew (talk) 14:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

"I can also see the same editors attempting to suppress leigitmate views in socionics theory again that have been there from the foundation, such as Ausura Augustas belief in and supposedly scientific and speculative ventures into the world of chakras. It would be dishonest to try to hide that from people."

Aushra Augusta's diverse extra-socionic interests and lifestyle details should be expounded in the article on Aushra Augusta, where they are more relevant. If we are going to include in the socionics article all speculative hypotheses ever made by its chief proponents, the article would be book length. I also support the idea of mentioning in the socionics article that some, or many, socionics authors in Russia, Ukraine, and Lithuania, have claimed to make connections between socionics and ____ (fill in the blank -- astrology, homeopathy, ancient mysticism, and whatever else can be documented). What I object to is the introduction of muddled text into the socionics article such as: "leigitmate views in socionics theory again that have been there from the foundation, such as Ausura Augustas belief in and supposedly scientific and speculative ventures into the world of chakras." It can be mentioned in the article that some, or many, socionics practitioners or theorists have dabbled in nonacademic fields such as ____ (fill in the blank), but the addition of phrases such as that relating chakras to socionic functions are "legitimate" views (how can "legitimacy" be demonstrated?) or that Augusta's ventures into the esoteric somehow constitute "views in socionics theory" simply makes no sense in my opinion.

McNew has provided numerous sources, but his sources do not say the same thing that he is saying. The sources demonstrate that, as I have already stated, "some, or many, socionics practitioners or theorists have dabbled in nonacademic fields such as ____ (fill in the blank)". They do not support the hypothesis that mystic or esoteric ideas have contributed practically to the development of socionics theory.

In refutation of "Rick Dulong attempts to disassociate the tattwas from the socionics functions by claiming that the shapes are universal symbols, which is true," this is deceptive wording that suggests that the association is proven or known, and that I am trying to hide the association. In fact, I am simply maintaining the null hypothesis -- that there is no practical connection. The burden of proof is on the hypothesis, not the null hypothesis. --Rick DeLong (talk) 14:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you formed your final opinion a little too quickly. I wrote my response under "final opinion of Rick Delong" --Rmcnew (talk) 02:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

tcaudilllg response to rmcnew's reponse to Rick Delong

This is stupid.... ...Do you have any idea how evil you are sounding? I mean really you are coming off to people like a emissary of their worst inclinations to doubt their own sensibility.

The only option now is to remove this stuff from the article. The Ukrainians are not going to come down and defend themselves before the likes of Wikipedians. Rest assured of that. It is now up to Wikipedia to demonstrate its reliability by rejecting these arguments for esoterism.

If there is no consensus apparent to strike the esoteric elements, then I will recommend appropriate measures. Tcaudilllg (talk) 15:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the mediation is broken down and that a formal mediation is required. Tcaudilllg (talk) 15:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

rmcnew's response to tcaudilllg

How is mediation suddenly broken down?

I think so long as it is being empasized that there are sides, and certain editors avoid finding legitimate sources to justify a socionics article on wikipedia, there are going to be mediation issues. The solution is to stop emphasizing that there are sides, and to find credible sources that justify the article in general. Just do that and that would solve the problems right there. Maybe you should spend more time convinceing people that you want to help with solutions to these problems or attempt to at least do a better job at finding credible sources. That would mean much more for encouraging a positive atmosphere, than talking alot of dramatic and accusatory BS. Taking that I do respect Delong's opinion, though I do not agree completely with it for the very reasons I stated. --Rmcnew (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

McNew, you're a very good guy at hiding ill intent behind pretty words.

The argument will end the moment you cease inserting esoterism references in this article, and not a moment before. Tcaudilllg (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

And my argument will end the moment that you stop unneutrally excludeing key portions of socionics theory that are notably esoteric or religious, while claiming to be scientific, because you have an unneutral opinion that these things are unnotable, and when these things are key portions of the development of socionics theory. Ausura Augustas ventures into supposed scientific and speculative applications of the information elements and chakras during the development of socionics theory included. --Rmcnew (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-09-16/Socionics#Possible_Solution. What it comes down to is that neutrality isn't so important (because the article will be inherently neutral, having as many reliable sources as possible) as long as your sources are reliable. If the source is reliable, it deserves a spot in the article, but I (or someone with more authority, like Manning) will be the judge of the reliability of the sources. If it's peer-reviewed by PhDs, or on the official websites, it should almost definitely be in the article. If only one PhD says something (blogs, and forums are borderline acceptable in this case), a "X claims that..." type format should be used. The views in Viktor Gulenko's blog aren't necessarily the official position of the big socionics associations. Really, if everyone followed the content policies (Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view, Wikipedia:No_original_research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources, Wikipedia:Citing_sources, and Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not), this could have all been avoided.

Does anyone disagree with this? MichaelExe (talk) 20:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, I do disagree that you will be the final judge of the reliability of the sources! We do consensus on Wikipedia, you see! Tcaudilllg (talk) 05:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Then we can all judge. I assumed you and Rmcnew had gotten too personal to do so, but Manning and I are a little more removed from the situation. My only argument was policy; I didn't choose sides, but it seems I didn't have enough authority to get my point across.

The thing is - having both you and Rmcnew still involved in this part may present more difficulty, and if you're aloud to judge, and him not, it will likely be biased. Then again, they're just sources. It should be a little more black and white from now on when choosing them.

Finally, don't argue for the sake of arguing. If you disagree with something, at least try and propose a solution. MichaelExe (talk) 11:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You're not as removed from this argument as you think. I see your values on display quite clearly.

The solution is that the esoteric component of socionics really isn't notable. Whether or not esoterism had a role in its creation is a matter for historians to conclude. The researches into esoterism by a few socionists should be viewed only as private spiritual exercises. The purpose of socionics is to study personality and how information processing affects it; it is not to study links between tattvas or anything else esoteric. If anything that would be an anthropological application of socionics. Even still it is plain that esoteric studies are not in themselves notable because they say nothing of merit to the average person. In any case most of the practicioners of socionics want to remove themselves completely from any connotation with esoterism: its a blight upon their professional capacity to interface with cognitive psychologists, at the least.

If you must insist that esoterism be discussed in the context of socionics, then I recommend creating a "socionics (esoterism) article". Which is exactly what I did before it was deleted: I channeled McNew's energy into that article and well away from the main one, but a general sense of ignorance of socionics on Wikipedia prevailed and it was merged back into this one.... Tcaudilllg (talk) 16:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You're over-complicating. It really just comes down to content policy. If the source is reliable (which we'll discuss), whether or not you agree with the views expressed, it deserves a place in the article. I was going to take on this role myself, because I've already been doing it up until now. Your focus thus far (and imo) has been arguing with Rmcnew and disproving the content of the sources; mine has always been judging their reliability and trying to shift everyone's attention to the content policies. It's simple; if/when Rmcnew finds a good enough source, we'll include it in the article. His current work in the esotericism section will likely be removed (I've already gone through the sources).

If you still disagree, I'll ask for Manning's opinion on the matter, or we could, of course, move on to formal mediation. MichaelExe (talk) 20:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You are completely discounting notability. Tcaudilllg (talk) 23:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! --Rmcnew (talk) 21:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any idea what kind of precedent your idea would set? It exalts the appearance of authority even over coherence. Authority granted can be squandered... although there is a measure of authority assumed with the receipt of a PhD, it is up to the individual to determine the degree to which the authority granted has been squandered... or I should say, the consensus. Gulenko's may not be the "official position" but his reputation is not questioned amongst his peers. Reputation alone is the measure of notability in academics. Tcaudilllg (talk) 22:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

So you admit that Gulenko's may not be official position. That's all I need from you. His blog can still be used as a source, but his name should appear in the sentence or paragraph. The same with any other PhD in psychology, sociology or socionics that comments about socionics. If their names are there, leave it up to the readers to decide whether or not to trust their word. The worst they can get from it is that "X said this about socionics" if they don't completely misinterpret, in which case it's more their fault than ours. If you want to emphasize the importance of Viktor Gulenko, add "chairperson of the Humanitarian Socionics Institute in Kiev, Ukraine" in apposition after his name.

Tbh, with socionics, anything said by a PhD (in a related field) is noteworthy, because of how little is said about socionics. Few take enough interest into the subject. MichaelExe (talk) 23:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I just noted this statement by tcaulldig "Reputation alone is the measure of notability in academics" ... this just screams out appeal to popularity. Just because someone has a neutral reputation or a degree of popularity among peers that alone does not make that person notable. --Rmcnew (talk) 23:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you google the PhD's name, and little to nothing comes up, then you'd probably be better off not using them as a source. There's a chance, however unlikely, that the person isn't even real at all, and if you can't find anything about them personally (especially confirmation of their education), it's hard to trust what they say. MichaelExe (talk) 23:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I tested this by typing - [Prokofieva Tatyana socionics] - into google. On about the third page there was listed this handy resource. Right at the top it again says "Prokofieva Tatyana Nikolaevna - PhD in the sphere of socionics - General Director of the Socionics Scientific Research Institute", which corresponds to "Chief Director of institute: Ph.D. in Socionics Prokofieva Tatyana" on [this webpage]. It says right there "Ph.D" and that she is a director of a socionics institute.

Yeah, I agree that this may not be more notable "by accredation" than Tcaulldig's Gulenko blog links, but that is the point. Socionics in the west that you can call anything about it bogus. Her name is also listed acrotst several links in the context of socionics. So, this is one good one. Probably the only thing that comes closer is the 2005 kracow psychology meet where socionics was discussed. At least at that event some western PHDs were present. Other than that. Not much else is said.

I don't have a clue what tcaulldig's gripe is about, but I am for it. That way the neutrality of the information would be based solely on the reliability of sources.--Rmcnew (talk) 23:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

DeLong's final opinion

I have looked at McNew's sources and weighed their content with the claims he has made, and have produced some new sources, such as the Citation Index and Augusta's 1980 article giving socionics symbols. I believe I have sufficiently discredited McNew's hypotheses. I recommend deleting all mention of esoteric and mystic sources for socionics from the Wikipedia article, as these have no solid foundation, and putting some mention of Augusta's later esoteric interests in the article on her, if editors deem that of interest to readers. --Rick DeLong (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It was going to be removed as is, anyway, because the sources were not reliable. MichaelExe (talk) 20:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

When? Tcaudilllg (talk) 21:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I will say this: that rmcnew has not given the Russian article similar treatment seems to me to indicate a lack of resolve on his part. I am also surprised that rmcnew has only made claims about socionics being a pseudoscience and not MBTI, despite their use of similar methods. And what about analytical psychology in general? Certainly it deserves the label of pseudo/protoscience as well, if rmcnew's arguments hold water.... So it seems to me he has more work to do on Wikipedia... much more. Tcaudilllg (talk) 23:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

MBTI has nothing to do with the socionics article. And if we are going to be doing any comparisons between theories, socionics is also often compared to the periodic table. So, whatever you said about MBTI and analytical psychology is mute in this instance. Unless by all means that you want to claim that socionics compares to the periodic table in a similar way that MBTI and analytical psychology does, in any case.

"Aushra Augustinavichuite’s student V. Lyashkyavichus has worked out a table of intertype relationships, that is, relationships between personality types. This table is often and rightfully compared to Mendeleev’s table in chemistry. As Mendeleev’s table has made of description chemistry a science with exact rules and criteria, introduction of the intertype relationships table has brought objective criteria into the science of interpersonal relationships."

http://en.socionics.ru/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=249&Itemid=109

--Rmcnew (talk) 00:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

MichaelExe, are you going to strike the esoterism or not? Tcaudilllg (talk) 23:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

He thinks that the information on socionics.ru is reliable enough for inclusion on wikipedia and that the esoteric section can be rewritten according to what is stated on the website. See my talk page. --Rmcnew (talk) 00:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

So you've taken him in, eh? Well he seems to be discounting the notability factor completely, as though he doesn't believe in it, and if that is the case then his judgment is impaired. To Arbcom, then, to get a judgment on the notability of socionics-related esoterism. Tcaudilllg (talk) 00:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

From [1]: "The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. They do not give guidance on the content of articles, except for lists of people. Instead, various content policies govern article content, with the amount of coverage given to topics within articles decided by its appropriate weight."

Obviously the section on esotericism isn't going to be huge, and the source Rmcnew found mentions nothing of socionics' possible status as protoscience or pseudoscience. I'd still like Manning's opinion on whether the webmaster is notable enough. She has a PhD, and several others working under her, but her name doesn't give many results in Google. I am leaning towards a yes, however. MichaelExe (talk) 00:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Now you're wikilawyering.

It doesn't matter if SHE is notable or not. What matters is whether esoteric study of socionics is itself notable. It's not.

Weight, notability... whatever. I think mediation has broken down and only Arbcom can fix it at this point. The situation has become quite desperate and it's gotten to the point where even expert testimony is being ignored. Do you want Lytov's opinion? Would his be enough? MichaelExe, spend some time on the16types.info, learn what socionics is about, and then come back and argue for what is notable in socionics. Tcaudilllg (talk) 01:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The point is - weight defines how much coverage of a certain topic should be included. Rmcnew's source would be 1 of 22 sources in the article, meaning that the section on esotericism would be 1/22 of the entire article (although there is a lot of unsourced material, after remedying this, I'd assume about 1/35). 1/35=/=0. A few sentences on theories of esotericism isn't going to destroy socionics, and even then, these sentences are (probably) reliable enough. Either way, we're waiting on Manning. MichaelExe (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

She gets several hits from this search link: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Prokofieva+Tatyana+socionics&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi= --Rmcnew (talk) 01:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

And Tatyana Prokofieva pops up when you do a whois on socionics.ru

http://whois.domaintools.com/socionics.ru --Rmcnew (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

My bad. I used quotation marks around her name, and that left me only about 5 results. There are different spellings (y vs i) and her name appears both as "Tatyana Prokofieva" and "Prokofieva Tatyana". I used the latter, which seems to be the least common of the two. Either way, we're leaving the decision up to Manning (User_talk:Manning_Bartlett#Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal.2FCases.2F2009-09-16.2FSocionics). If that isn't fair for everyone, I don't know what is. MichaelExe (talk) 01:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

According to this link Rick Delong also saw her speak at the 2006 conference in Kiev, Ukraine while he was there. Socionics.us is his website. http://www.socionics.us/interviews/conference_2006.shtml --Rmcnew (talk) 01:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

rmcnew's response to rick delongs final opinion

A couple of questions here. I see that Rick delong has made a number of (what sounds like inaccurate) assumptions concerning what he believes my specific position to be that I think should be addressed. And for that I have a couple of questions. - These questions are for Rick Delong only.

Rick Dulong makes the statement "I believe I have sufficiently discredited McNew's hypotheses" -

What exactly is "my hypothesis"?

I said "hypotheses," not "hypothesis." 1) The socionic symbols were taken from the Tattwas, 2) hermeticism served as a foundation for socionics theory.

Rick Dulong also states "I recommend deleting all mention of esoteric and mystic sources for socionics from the Wikipedia article, as these have no solid foundation"

What exactly are you considering to have "no solid foundation?" and why do quote "all" of the mystic and esoteric sources deserve deletion?

I said, "all mention of esoteric and mystic sources for socionics". That means, that the socionics article should not suggest that esoteric and mystic ideas were a source for socionics theory. This is because no such sources have been demonstrated to exist.

Rick Delong also states that: In refutation of "Rick Dulong attempts to disassociate the tattwas from the socionics functions by claiming that the shapes are universal symbols, which is true," this is deceptive wording that suggests that the association is proven or known, and that I am trying to hide the association. In fact, I am simply maintaining the null hypothesis -- that there is no practical connection. The burden of proof is on the hypothesis, not the null hypothesis.

How exactly is there "no practical connection"? and how does that effect what you seem to believe my " hypothesis" is?

The socionics symbols were almost certainly not modeled after the tattwas. To suggest so would be original research, and the evidence put forth is simply nonexistent: "look at the socionic symbols. Three of them look like Tattwas."

Rick Delong also says: McNew has provided numerous sources, but his sources do not say the same thing that he is saying.

What exactly is it that you are presumeing that I am saying and how is that conflicting with the sources?

See the two hypotheses I wrote above. None of the socionics articles you have mentioned support either of your hypotheses.

Rick Delong makes one final statement: "They do not support the hypothesis that mystic or esoteric ideas have contributed practically to the development of socionics theory."

How have these not contributed practically to the development of socionics theory?

Because they are not part of the generally accepted body of socionics theory. There is no evidence of esoteric sources for the development of classical socionics, i.e. what is outlined in detail at the Russian wikipedia article and serves as the common foundation for all, or nearly all, socionists.

A few last questions for Rick Delong:

' If esoteric ideas have no practical application to socionics theory, than how come the below statement is on the socionics.ru website?

I didn't say that. I said that esoteric ideas did not contribute to the development of classical socionics.

Why would a socionics scientific research institute want to post anything about chakras and hinduism on its official socionics website?

First of all, what sort of research institute is this? It is a small group of people who think about and apply socionics in various ways. They have no building or assets and are not part of the nation's academic structure.

Takeing the emphasis that this institute is for scientific research, would not allowing a comparison of socionics to chakras and hinduism conflict with the western understanding of science?

What is "scientific" about making comparisons? Anyone can do that. The institute's purpose is actually not to perform empirical scientific research, but rather to provide an "official sounding" organizational backing for a certain group of socionists.

Would that therefore mean that as an official socionics scientific research institute, by allowing these comparisons they are bringing socionics away from the methods of western science and closer protoscientific and alternative medicine fields?

This suggestion of yours, finally, is absolutely correct.

Why would this institute keep calling itself a "scientific research" institute?

To make itself sound more important than it really is. This is a widely used technique. For example, the authors of this book originally positioned themselves as the "socionics institute" even though no one in the Russian socionics community had even heard of them. However, Prokofieva enjoys a much higher reputation in the socionics community, as can be seen through citations of her work in other papers on socionics within the community.

Would they consider any potential scientific advancements in the study and comparison of these religious beliefs?

The word "Nauchnyy" in Russian is not exactly "scientific," but closer to "research" (as an adjective). All the members of the institute are doing is making intellectual investigations into socionics and other fields and writing about connections they have noticed. That is no different in essence than anything anyone else does.

Why is it that the author is emphasizing health in this instance as it compares to physical sickness?

"health" is a broader concept than "physical sickness."

The below statement is on the official website for the "Socionics Scientific Research Instutite". And I am going to bold the word scientific in that. It should be noted that Rick Delong's statement conflicts with the position of the below article, which compares socionics to hinduism. The author seems to believe that studying these hindu religious beliefs and connected esotericism, as they compare to the "young science of socionics" can lead to practical understandings in the prevention of disease and the creation of good health.

As I've said, just because some people call their organization a "scientific research institute" (or "research institute," as would be a more professional translation, as noted above) doesn't mean that their research is actually scientific.

Furthermore, as the issue at hand is 'whether esoteric sources contributed significantly to the development of socionics theory,' comparisons of socionics to hinduism by prominent socionics authors do not constitute a significant theoretical contribution to classical, widely accepted socionics.

Now, why would that be?

Source: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.socionics.ru%2Fchakry.htm

Effect of Energy flows on health and the evolution of human consciousness

Research and technocratic revolution of the twentieth century has opened up new ways of obtaining information, provided an opportunity to exchange news with the world. , , , – .First you get a phone, then radio, television, and today - the Internet. The man opened the door to a new unknown world.And so it falls upon already strong information flow of the latest news, discoveries and achievements. But also the new gossip, political intrigue, the notorious "soap opera" in a television series, detectives, etc. Taking all the information without parsing the whole, people no longer control its flow. Consciousness can not cope with any volume or speed of its revenues, and the psyche can not stand. In such a situation man becomes a puppet: information flows occupy his mind and actively affect the mental state. This was one of the reasons for rapid growth over the last century the number of mental illnesses.

In seeking a solution to this problem there are many different scientific concepts, schools of philosophy, psychological training. Study of the impact of information on the human psyche deals and Socionics, and neurolinguistic programming, and Dianetics, etc. .. etc.

But the problem is not new. More than two thousand years ago the ancient philosophers of India decide this issue by studying the structure of meditative man, his thin shells. Thus were discovered and investigated energy information centers, or chakras. From the teachings of the chakras, the impact of them on a conscious, psycho-emotional life and human health and the connection of this theory with socionics introduces this article.

According to TN Prokofiev, the subject of Socionics is a "study of the processes of information exchange rights with the world and their impact on the psyche." It is therefore important Socionics, having studied the energy-centers, to draw parallels between these ancient teachings and the young science socionics. Moreover, the study of this topic to determine the correspondence between the features and functions socionic awakened centers. In the future, this matter will give a new clue to the study of psychological, socionic and health problems of man, will open a new approach to study the causes of diseases.

The quoted text clearly shows that author Olga Krylova has a serious interest in nonacademic fields such as chakras and tries to relate them to socionics. It does not at all demonstrate that esoteric and mystic ideas/systems lay at the foundations of socionics theory. It might be possible to demonstrate that a significant number of socionists write about nonacademic fields such as ____ (fill in the blank), however, this does not mean that socionics came from these esoterics and mysticism, as these are nowhere mentioned as primary sources for the development of socionics theory. Everywhere, the following sources are identified: Jung and Kempinsky. To suggest that esoterism was a prominent source of socionics would constitute original research, since there are no known Russian language sources that corroborate this claim. To make this clearer, if a sub-group of evolutionary scientists believe in intelligent design, that does not mean that religious ideas lay at the foundation of the theory of evolution. This, as it appears to me, is exactly the kind of point McNew is trying to push. --Rick DeLong (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

DeLong's opinion (pasted from elsewhere where it was out of place)

Regarding McNew's proposed solution, I strongly disagree with it. To fairly represent socionics in the article and specifically include mention of connections made by socionists to religion, mysticism, and esoterism, one would also need to include mention of all other subject matters discussed by socionics authors in writing. For instance, socionics and cybernetics, socionics and schizophrenia, socionics and alcoholism, socionics and world domination, socionics and the American Ethos, socionics and the Orange Revolution, socionics and the zodiac, socionics and music, socionics and differential functional states, socionics and cultural evolution, socionics and product development, socionics and marketing, socionics and organizational behavior, socionics and management, socionics and world philosophy, socionics and architecture, socionics and animal personality, etc. -- just to name a few. Isolating "socionics and mysticism" without mentioning these other 'applications' of the field would constitute an unbalanced representation of the field. --Rick DeLong (talk) 16:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Rick Delongs assertion above for the fact that socionics has been adapted into something similar to a new age healing technique. --Rmcnew (talk) 14:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a response here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Socionics#socionists_have_turned_socionics_into_a_therapy_akin_to_the_alternative_medicine_technique_of_vibrational_medicine

Question 2 for ALL parties from mediator

User:Manning here: Ok I've been reading everything that is going on here. As a next step I want to give each and every one of you the opportunity to present your viewpoint.

The Question: "How would you go about restructuring the article to most fairly represent socionics"?

The Rules:

• Do NOT mention another editor in your answer for ANY reason. Focus solely on the content and how best to structure it. Don't try and cheat by using non-specific references like "certain editors have said" either. (Anyone who breaches rule this will get their entire statement deleted by any other party, without notice or debate.)
• Do NOT respond to anyone else's statement for ANY reason. Debate will come later. Anyone who breaches rule this will have their entire comment deleted by any other party without notice or debate.
• You are free to copy or adapt the ideas of anybody else, including cutting and pasting their words as your own if needs be. This isn't an originality contest.
• You are free to refactor your statement at any time. Please change the version number of your statement each time you do so and make a note in your edit summary.
• Please read the essay on "brevity" called WP:TLDR

Answer by (your name here)

(Version 1)

Answer by Rmcnew

(Version 14)

I am keeping this brief:

- The socionics article should cite only sources by socionists listed as "key authors" by the website Socion.org; other sources, such as english language those from Spencer Stern or Socionic Love Match Material, should be considered 2nd sources and only stated in as far as they are shown to accent the work of those key authors.

- Legitimate comparisons to esoterism as have been reported by official socionic institutes should receive a sufficent amount of coverage in the article(as much as an editor damn well wants to put into it), and be followed immediately after by a leigitmate PHD verified source from the same socionics institute.

- The article should briefly introduce readers to socionics as presented by each of the key authors according to Socion.org; .

- The socionics article should be modeled after the sources in the russian wikipedia article.

- The article should cater to socionics as a science, a protoscience, and pseudoscience.

- The article should give a basic outline of the theory structure.

- The article should not include too many references to Carl Jung or MBTI

- The article should relay the methods of comparison between esoteric/religious theories.

- The socionics article should talk about accomplishments in the theory.

- The socionics article should include information that comes only from verified PHDs and/or from an official socionics publishing house that is associated with a socionics institute.

- The socionics article should be framed academically and without personal bias.

- Any material from socionics.ru and socionics.kiev.ua should be included in the wikipedia article without question. Sources stemming directly from socionics institutes should be considered primary sources and any socionics material published for commercial purposes in english that are not of the same origion should take 2nd place to these sources, though may still be considered credible to some extent. Any exclusion in favor non-institute based sources, such as any material from Spencer Stern or Socionic Love Match material, or any other implication of only using english language material that has no derivation directly from these instutites riskes neutrality and the mistake of allowing biased western fringe theories to enter into the article, that misrepresent socionics as it origionates from these institutes. Therefore, Institute based sources such as from Kiev and Moscow should be considered primary sources, all others secondary sources.

- A list of credible socionic authors, theorists, and PHDs should be compiled and any competeing thoughts between those authors should be stated neutrally in the article at all times. The wikipedia article should generally include information from these authors, theorists, and PHDs, but the information considered for inclusion into wikipedia should never be exclusive to the certain competeing views of these authors.

- Authors who have published socionics material first in english and are disconnected from russian socionic culture, while still being considered credible, should be given 2nd place to other sources that were derived from people, legitimate socionic schools and conditions that represent the raw elements of socionics culture.

- Site:.edu with search term in regular google is another way to find credible material. Any sources found in english or any other language concerning socionics or related that ends with a .edu domain, and has information placed by a credible individual, should be included without question.

Example: I typed ( Sites:.edu socionics ) into google and got a .edu link on reinin theory in russian.

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/kasiuka/socionics/html/reinin-theory.html (translation)

- Any statements from other editors who use the term "International Institute for Socionics" or "International Socionics Institute" or name any socionics institute for any reason should back up the statement by posting a legitimate PHD verified source article from that institute or remove the statement, as that constitutes origional research and is unsupported by viable sources.

I may add more as I think of things. --Rmcnew (talk) 15:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Answer by Tcaudilllg (talk)

(Version 2)

- The socionics article should cite only sources by socionists listed as "key authors" by Google Scholar; other sources should be considered only in as far as they are shown to accent the work of those key authors.

- Hypothesized relationships to esoterism should receive only a brief mention in the article (no more than two short sentences), and be followed immediately after by the International Socionics Institute's position that there is no relationship between esoterism and Model A.

- The article should briefly introduce readers to socionics as presented by each of the key authors according to Google Scholar.

I am echoing several of MichaelExe's version 1 points, because I concur with them. To wit:

• the content policies and guidelines should be followed. Much of the article is uncited or requires better citation.

• Socionics should have a (better) section devoted to its history.

• Hypothesized relationships to esoterism should receive only a brief mention in the article (no more than two short sentences, and only if the source(s) are reliable), and be followed immediately after by the International Socionics Institute's position that there is no relationship between esoterism and Model A. I don't think that esotericism deserves its own section, based on the reliability of the sources we've found trying to tie socionics to esotericism, but it is relevant. There shouldn't be any particular emphasis placed on socionics and esotericism; any other sufficiently sourced ties (or supposed ties) should also be mentioned.

• There should be a criticism section, and most of the As Science section should be moved to and rewritten in that section. From [2]: "Some things require a bit more care: Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect; however it should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point." In the criticism section of Psychology (for another example), it is noted: "Criticisms of psychology often come from perceptions that it is a "fuzzy" science. Philosopher Thomas Kuhn's 1962 critique implied psychology overall was in a pre-paradigm state, lacking the agreement on overarching theory found in mature sciences such as chemistry and physics. Psychologists and philosophers have addressed the issue in various ways. Because some areas of psychology rely on research methods such as surveys and questionnaires, critics have asserted that psychology is not scientific (due to the largely correlational nature of survey research). Other phenomena that psychologists are interested in, such as personality, thinking, and emotion, cannot be directly measured and are often inferred from subjective self-reports, which may be problematic."

- Finally, I really don't care what format the article uses. It doesn't seem necessary to me that it be a straight or near copy of the Russian content, particularly because the Russian article is quite lacking in any mention of new developments (such as Model B). I think it probable that Dmitri Lytov has let his personal views get in the way of his objectivity (he did in fact, criticize several hypotheses put forward by other socionists on his website) when choosing which views to represent in that article, and I think we can do better. Tcaudilllg (talk) 03:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Answer by Rick DeLong

Very simple. Take the Russian Wikipedia article and model the English after it. Otherwise, there is a great chance of misrepresenting the field due to a lack of personal acquaintance with the socionics community. The Russian Wikipedia article is well balanced and addresses pseudoscience concerns well. It also addresses Jung's Typology prominently as the primary source of socionics theory, as stated by all socionics authors, especially Augusta. --Rick DeLong (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Answer by MichaelExe (talk)

(Version 1)

• Above all, the content policies and guidelines should be followed. Much of the article is uncited or requires better citation.

• Socionics should have a (better) section devoted to its history.

• Hypothesized relationships to esoterism should receive only a brief mention in the article (no more than two short sentences, and only if the source(s) are reliable), and be followed immediately after by the International Socionics Institute's position that there is no relationship between esoterism and Model A. I don't think that esotericism deserves its own section, based on the reliability of the sources we've found trying to tie socionics to esotericism, but it is relevant. There shouldn't be any particular emphasis placed on socionics and esotericism; any other sufficiently sourced ties (or supposed ties) should also be mentioned.

• There should be a criticism section, and most of the As Science section should be moved to and rewritten in that section. From [2]: "Some things require a bit more care: Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect; however it should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point." In the criticism section of Psychology (for another example), it is noted: "Criticisms of psychology often come from perceptions that it is a "fuzzy" science. Philosopher Thomas Kuhn's 1962 critique implied psychology overall was in a pre-paradigm state, lacking the agreement on overarching theory found in mature sciences such as chemistry and physics. Psychologists and philosophers have addressed the issue in various ways. Because some areas of psychology rely on research methods such as surveys and questionnaires, critics have asserted that psychology is not scientific (due to the largely correlational nature of survey research). Other phenomena that psychologists are interested in, such as personality, thinking, and emotion, cannot be directly measured and are often inferred from subjective self-reports, which may be problematic."

Temporary halt to mediation

This case is now under consideration by the Arbitration Committee. Hence I am suspending mediation until the ARBCOM has decided (or not) to take on the case. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Tcaudilllg. Manning (talk) 01:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Mediation terminated

This case has been accepted by Arbcom, hence mediation is terminated. Manning (talk) 21:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)