Socionics - Load of crap

[norm...@gmail.com]

Hi, I don't post here normally, nor am I an expert on any particular
feild of science, and I'm not even sure this is the right place to talk
about this, but I need the opinion of smart, skeptical people who
understand the sciences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socionics
http://socionics.com/
http://www.simplysocionics.com/

I keep running into this stuff called "Socionics" on the internet. Its
some new psychology theory, combining ideas from MBTI tests and
Freudian psychology (Two already controversial areas of psychology). It
claims to be the "The New Psychology". There is a lot of
pseudoscientific elements surrounding socionics that nobody sems to
want to admit. Here are a few.

* Socionics claims that you can tell how a person thinks by the way
they look. Read this http://socionics.com/advan/vi/vi.htm . Sound like
Physiognomy? It is.

* Socionics reduces complex personal relationships to simple mathmatic
equations. http://socionics.com/rel/rel.htm This has about as much
validity as those love tests in the back of sumpermarket magazines.

* Socionics has practically no evidence supporting it's claims that I
can find. Where is the proof?

What bugs me the most is that half the stuff I find about it is a
recycled wikipedia article, which seems to have no mention of socionics
as a pseudoscience (the entire article is very supicious - it's poorly
translated russian that sounds more like an advertisement for socionics
than it does an encyclopedia article). What do you all think of this,
and what do you know about it? Any sites that might give me some real
information about it? I want to try to edit the wikipedia article to be
a little more skeptical but I'm no expert, and I need some more
information as well as expert opinions.

[kra...@gmail.com]

you haven't studied the subject and it's obvious. http://socionics.us

[kra...@gmail.com]

I mean.. you haven't studiet it even a bit and you are going to edit
the whole wikipedia article? Doesn't sound like a good idea.

[norm...@gmail.com]

Sorry, let me be a little more clear -
I dont want to edit the article without studying it. Infact I'd rather
not edit the article at all. One of the big problems with stuff like
wikipedia is that the people who write for it don't always know that
they are talking about. I just wanted to know if there was any group of
people who objected to socionics as a pseudoscience and if there was
significant reason for being skeptical, I would try to get a little
mention on the page that many people consider it pseudoscience.

[con...@socionics.us]

I have addressed many of your objections in an article at
http://www.socionics.us/philosophy/misperceptions.shtml

[con...@socionics.us]

I have addressed many of your objections in an article at
http://www.socionics.us/philosophy/misperceptions.shtml

[norm...@gmail.com]

Your page cleared up a lot. Thank you! :)