Talk:Socionics

Erotic Attitudes

I propose that a section on Gulenko's erotic attitudes theory of the types be added to his article. Tcaudilllg (talk) 05:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It is alright by me. The only issues I have is finding sources that fit wikipedias standards. As it stands what has already been written in that article contains alot of original research and questionable statements. My advice is to write a small subsection with reliable links and then link to the other article. Other than that, I say go for it. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I think there's an article about it on the Humanitarian Socionics site. Tcaudilllg (talk) 10:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I may have to scale back the sign section. Tcaudilllg (talk) 10:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparent outcome of the tcaudilllg vs Rmcnew case

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Socionics/Workshop

Comment is encouraged from all. Let us chastise these usurpers of the democratic will who would punish all those who seek to defend the integrity of Wikipedia articles in the face of administrative negligence. Tcaudilllg (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I think tcaulldig is just sore on account of being banned from editing for making legal threats. --Rmcnew (talk) 00:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Socionics - disambiguation

Reference to socionics, in the sense used by personality theorists, needs to be differentiated from two other senses in which the term has been used.

In the 1960s the term "socionics" was coined by the Russion born physicist and mathematician, N. Rashevsky, as the suggested title for a proposed discipline that would function analogously to "bionics". Rashevsky, a founder of mathematical biophysics, arrived at the conclusion that crucial aspects of living systems could not be explained in terms of physics, and proposed instead that many living phenomena could be better understood by looking to forms of organization characteristic of human society. In his article: "Physics, biology, and sociology: A reappraisal", Rashevsky argues that: “not only can the study of biological phenomena throw light on some physical phenomena, but that the study of social phenomena may be of value for the understanding of the structures and functions of living organisms. The possibility of a sort of "socionics" is indicated.” (see The Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics (1966) 28:283-308. To my knowledge this is the first use of the term 'socionics'. On Rashevsky see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Rashevsky

Another usage of the term socionics arose in the mid 1990s (independently of Rashevsky) with reference to multiagent based computational systems. Thomas Malsch and others envisaged a new scientific discipline based upon a synthesis of computer science and sociology, in which social theory would provide models for solving problems that had arisen in multiagent-based software, and multiagent systems would be used to model and test social theories. They suggested "Socionics" as the title for the new discipline. Several books and many articles have since been published on the topic, including a special edition of JASSS, the leading social simulation journal. Socionics, in this context, is referred to in the Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology_and_complexity_science --Asd154 (talk) 13:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

While these are correct uses of socionics and perfectly valid topics in their own right, I opine the personality theory of socionics is more notable and more widely important to most users and should be the default search result, a disambiguation page should be linked from it rather than be the default result. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 12:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)