Talk:Socionomics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 A formal Request for Mediation related to this article
was filed with the Mediation Committee on 16:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC).

Please see the discussion on the case's request page.
All users involved in an issue undergoing mediation must agree to the mediation within seven days; please indicate your acceptance or denial of the mediation on the case's request page.

Contents

[edit] Restoring a NPOV

The initial description of socionomics included an over-emphasis on Robert Prechter, and featured words like "invented," "self-published," and certain quotation marks, all expressed in ways that did not communicate a NPOV. Rgfolsom 21:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No Puffery Please

Prechter is about the only guy who believes this stuff and IS the only guy who has published about it (please include the others in this article if I am wrong). So how can Robert Prechter be "over-emphasized"? "Invented" "non-scientific" and "self-published" are quite important here simply because this is a one-man theory. By the way to disprove "non-scientific," I think that all you need to do is find a reputable academic from a reputable university, in sociology, economics, or related area, and quote them saying that this is a reputable theory (or anything similar).

Without this type of support this article looks like Prechter blowing his own horn.Smallbones 08:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't contribute puffery. Quite a few academics take socionomics seriously, which a Google search will immediately confirm. John Nofsinger (PhD in finance) is a tenured finance professor at Washington State University, and has published books and articles in scholarly journals that treat socionomics favorably. John Casti (PhD in mathematics) taught at NYU and Princeton, and has likewise published favorable books and articles about socionomics. There are others; you can easily confirm as much for yourself if you want to. I intend to do more editing and cleaning up of this article, and include facts and evidence about socionomics that come from academic sources. But, I began with Prechter because that's where socionomics began.
With all due respect, your comments suggest that your point of view is biased against socionomics -- "this stuff", "blowing his own horn" --speaks for itself.
Rgfolsom 15:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect, I'd like to see quotes and sources from these academics before judging what they say and whether it supports Socionomics as a science. It is also notable that your edits are about 80% in Socionomics, Elliot Wave Principle, and Robert Prechter. You're pretty wrapped up in this stuff, so I'll suggest that you should step back, take a look, and try to be as objective as possible. A scientific theory should have some quotable support from scientists, n'est pas? Smallbones 17:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Which articles I edit is less relevant than whether I do so from a NPOV. I believe our exchanges here are more likely to remain civil if we focus on Wikipedia's article standards, not on who is wrapped up in what. To wit, the entry I've added with the quotes you ask for. QED
Rgfolsom 20:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
The unpublished Nofsinger paper linked from here does not support Socionomics as a scientific theory. Prechter is mentioned once in a footnote, and in the references as the author of "Socionomics." Please do not cite anything this lightweight as proof of scientific status. The "Mathametician" quoted seems to be speaking in a popular journal rather than actually publishing a paper - also pretty lightweight stuff. Smallbones 18:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Nofsinger's paper appeared in the Journal of Behavioral Finance in 2005; read the abstract here. I've updated the footnote in the article to include this information. Casti has a wealth of academic credentials and his article appeared in a reputable publication; putting quote marks around the word Mathametician [sic] does not change these facts. Type John Casti into Amazon and see if his books (and reviews of them) look like the works of a lightweight.
Thus far in our exchange, you claimed that Prechter is the only person who published about socionomics; I showed otherwise. You asked to see authoritative quotes and credentials; I produced them. You belittled these authorities; I give evidence that they are recognized scholars. What I haven't done is ask you to produce source evidence for your skepticism, and what you haven't done is offer any.
If you still find all of this to be unsatisfactory, then I think it's fair to conclude that we should go to Wikipedia with a request for mediation.
Rgfolsom 16:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You need to do better - I see no evidence of this being scientific

I'm sorry, but this stuff still seems completely unscientific. You stated:

"Quite a few academics take socionomics seriously, which a Google search will immediately confirm. John Nofsinger (PhD in finance) is a tenured finance professor at Washington State University, and has published books and articles in scholarly journals that treat socionomics favorably. John Casti (PhD in mathematics) taught at NYU and Princeton, and has likewise published favorable books and articles about socionomics. There are others; you can easily confirm as much for yourself if you want to."

but you show one article (which you now show has been published) that refers to Prechter only in a single footnote, and "socionomics" only in one entry in the bibliography. The Casti reference is in an article called "I know what you're doing next summer," which looks like it is not a scholarly work (and the quote doesn't pretend to be scholarly).

This is a fur piece from published favorable books and articles about socionomics. (note the double plural). If this is a scientific theory all you need to do is cite a few of these favorable books and articles. Two vague reference simply won't do.

Please do request mediation if you'd like. Smallbones 18:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

What I've done is find reputable academics from reputable universities, and they have spoken within their fields of expertise; their comments and research make the theory of socionomics reputable. You said that if I did this -- "or anything similar" -- I could "disprove 'non-scientific.'"
What's more, the quality of these citations exceeds the standards for "Burden of evidence" and "Sources" set out in Wikipedia's official policy on Verifiability. Prechter's name and book appear in the source material of a scholar whose paper demonstrably applies the socionomic premise to the business cycle; does the "only once" standard apply to all the other sources, or only to Prechter?
As for New Scientist, it's obviously not for a scholarly audience, yet the magazine does publish scholars like John Casti. The same can be said of Scientific American, Popular Science, Discovery, etc.; should we disregard the topics presented by scholars in these sources, or only the topic of socionomics?
The Wikipedia entry for Theory, (under the "Science" subhead) is also instructive, to wit: "In scientific usage…scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory." It also says, "The term theory is occasionally stretched to refer to theoretical speculation that is currently unverifiable. Examples are string theory and various theories of everything."
By this definition, the article would be on firm ground by describing socionomics as a "scientific theory," yet my edit uses "theory" alone. To use "unscientific" goes beyond overkill and into non-NPOV territory.
This is a last-ditch, good-faith attempt to resolve our dispute. I hope you also wish to avoid a request for mediation.
Rgfolsom 21:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I will weigh in an opinion on the NPOV debate. As a graduate student in economics interested in non-rational types of human behavior we see sometimes, I came to this article looking at herd behavior and related articles. I have observed the debate going on the past week or so between Smallbones and Rgfolsom. To date, I would say Rgfolsom has had the better of the rational debate. Several of the statements in the article before Rgfolsom's first edits did seem to me to exhibit a rather strong POV. I see nothing wrong with the encyclopedic tone and verifiability of Fgfolsom's recent edits. Smallbones, some of your additions to the article seem to me to exhibit rather strong non-NPOV. Overall, I would hope to see even more article cleanup and more verifiable citations added to the article over time. N2e 03:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Please feel free to weigh in on the discussion of a couple of related, and fairly muddled articles: herd behavior and herding instinct. Articles definitely need cleanup, and a possible merge. They might also need to be considered for a merge with the herd WP article that is linked to from the Socionomics article.
Please feel free to edit this article. But I think it has to be clear that when somebody uses a scientific sounding name like "socionomics" that it either is or isn't a theory with some minimum amount of acceptance by the scientific community. The 2 cites so far are just so far away from this standard as to be rediculous: one footnote in a peer reviewed journal, and one mathematician in an (apparently respectable) popular science magazine. If it is a scientific theory you simply have to be able to do better than that. Smallbones 14:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts, N2e. The Socionomics page does need a lot of work, which I had hoped to spend time doing instead of getting into fruitless debates on this page. Alas. I hope Wikipedia helps resolve this quickly.
Rgfolsom 16:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Science by numbers

I believe that it is important to judge with hard facts and not wishy-washy generalities. I would like to understand why the following track record was taken down ?

http://web.archive.org/web/20051210021258/http://www.elliottwave.com/big5traders/record/

(Note the link refers to Web Archives rather than a live page since removed)

It is pointless to say that you have a theory that explains certain behaviour on which you base - for example - your flagship forecasting service on (as in this case) then when your own results prove otherwise you hide them.

The problem is that if Socionomics requires interpretation then you should not trumpet it as a science of any degree. After all in mathematics you only need ONE example to disprove a theory while proving it is far more difficult.

On the otherhand if Socionomics is an individual's interpretation (ie Prechter's) on trends and inferred correlations then it is fair enough that sometimes you are right and sometimes you are wrong - so a few years (or decades) of being wrong is fine because it is a result of personal incorrect analysis.

But the fact that the poor results are taken down - and instead we are reminded of credentials such as winning a trading competition in 1989 means that it COULD have been just LUCK, not science.

Please sign. The above was added by a user whose User ID seems to be in quite poor taste. I've also taken the liberty to remove his last line, which might also be interpreted as being in poor taste or worse. Other than the above, I pretty much agree. The trading record above is only for 1 or 2 years and is amazingly bad, but of course we should also look at Prechter's long-term record, which is also amazingly bad. I think he must be the only stock picker in the world who has miss-called the DOW by 10,000 points (he's been consistently bearish since Oct. 20, 1987, when the Dow was below 2,000 - it's now above 12,000). Smallbones 15:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism re-write, Wikipedia on "theory," expanded intro quote

The previous Criticism entry was far too long and highly speculative, with many weasel words and no comments from critics.

I've also reverted to my edits for the first paragraph, and edited the second paragraph to include an additional quote from Prechter which helps identify the origin of socionomic theory.

Finally, with the word "theory" in mind, please consider these Wikipedia articles:

Article on Fact

"In science a fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a theory, which is a logical (often mathematical) explanation of or interpretation of facts."

Wikipedia Manual of Style, Words to avoid

"A common misperception is the belief that a theory just means a 'guess.' A theory is not only an educated and informed guess. It is a potential explanation according to available knowledge. Ideally it will have been tested carefully to attempt to determine whether or not it matches visible events, before cautiously beginning to believe it.
"In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested and verified or otherwise falsified by experiment and empirical observation. Theories predict the outcomes of specific situations. Confidence in a theory is reinforced by observation. A theory may be disproven if it is contradicted by observations (see falsifiability)."

Article on Science

"A theory, in the context of science, is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a certain natural phenomenon. A theory typically describes the behavior of much broader sets of phenomena than a hypothesis — commonly, a large number of hypotheses may be logically bound together by a single theory…. Scientists never claim absolute knowledge. Unlike a mathematical proof, a proven scientific theory is always open to falsification, if new evidence is presented. Even the most basic and fundamental theories may turn out to be imperfect if new observations are inconsistent with them."

Rgfolsom 19:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

<<deleted by author because Rgfolsome does not like the point of view>> Punanimal 09:36, 15 Nov 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More recognition

At this point the length of the Academic recognition section may be overkill, though it's arguably necessary to address healthy but deep skepticism. If Smallbones agrees about the legitimacy of socionomics as a theory and that it's not "all about Prechter," I'd like to cordially suggest that I withdraw the Request for mediation.

Rgfolsom 20:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but what you consider "overkill" I consider "not even close." The last bit about contributing questions to a preliminary survey organized by an academic group is not anywhere near as important as the single footnote in the peer-reviewed journal, which I consider to be next to nothing. How about showing an article from a peer reviewed journal that mentions the name "socionomics" Two would be enough for me. Smallbones 18:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You say that contributing to ANES research is less important than a footnote in an academic journal. Let's talk about that. ANES is a collaboration of Stanford and the U. of Michigan, which have two of the top political science programs in the United States. The National Science Foundation has funded them for decades; the ANES board of overseers is staffed entirely by tenured PhDs, mostly from Blue Chip and Ivy League schools.

The particular ANES study that you saw fit to remove from the Socionomics page is exactly the type of research that academics and graduate students climb all over themselves to be part of -- it's good experience and it looks great on a c.v. That's why ANES had 10x as many submissions as they could use.

If you look at who was selected in the "evaluation process" -- which is academic language for "tough competition" -- here's a few of the universities the selectees are from: Columbia, Princeton, Harvard Law School, Brown, NYU, UC Berkley, MIT -- look it up, all this and more is in the linked PDF doc. Also on the list is one non-university, namely the Socionomics Foundation.

So, "little or no academic recognition"? Saying it doesn't make it so. Deleting evidence doesn't make it so. Calling the evidence "POV" doesn't make it so.

I keep producing facts and evidence -- about what a theory is, about what reputable PhDs have to say in print, about who and what defines authentic research, even real quotes from real critics -- while you, Smallbones, make petty edits and deletions and produce nothing except demands on me to meet standards defined entirely by nobody except … you.

Why?

Rgfolsom 23:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-argument answered

You don't even try to make a case for your revert on the talk page. The "reason" amounts to a sentence about me in the summary line. But I'll continue to explain myself, Smallbones, and to show who is -- and is not -- abiding by Wikipedia's standards for good faith, NPOV, etc.

I don't want to be "sole editor" of the socionomics article. I would welcome other good-faith contributors. Editor N2e is a graduate student in economics, who offered a thoughtful opinion about the POV and academic recognition questions. Yet you rejected these comments by appealing to the same source of authority you've cited all along: you. Is it any wonder we haven't heard from N2e since?

I looked more carefully at your "contributions," Smallbones. What I found in Technical Analysis was interesting indeed, even recognizable. Words like "pseudoscience," disruptive edits from a flagrant POV, rude and ignorant assertions on the Talk page about issues like academic studies and statistics; and in turn, other editors showing your assertions to be (I'll put it politely) very badly informed.

I came to this page to contribute to the Socionomics article. By your own admission, the reason you're here now is to keep me from being "sole editor." This ad hominem behavior is consistent with the "contributions" you made to Robert Prechter's bio page, which, coincidentally enough, you hadn't touched until our dispute.

One of the great things about Wikipedia is that everything's on the record, and the record can reveal patterns that speak for themselves. Everyone who needs to see it eventually will.

Rgfolsom 18:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Folsom, I fear the only way you will appear credible to the wikipedia community at large is if you refrain from controversial edits on articles about subjects in which you have a personal financial stake. You as an associate of the "Socionomics Institute" and of their financial backer, "Elliot Wave International", are not a good source on the credibility of the hypothesis, unless your edits are sourced from credible publications. Your constant edit-warring exacerbates this perception. (Yes, everything is on record...) -- Marcika 13:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

That's very politely put, Marcika. I guess you think civility can take the edge off the chutzpah you show by answering a bugle call from a certain editor, and then reporting here for duty to tell me how to appear credible -- topped off with a reminder of what's on the record. Pray tell, which of my edits fail your "credible publications" standard? And please do humor me for saying so, but whatever the standard is I trust you'll stick with it; that certain editor thought he had a standard, but he starting moving the target every time I hit it.

And by the way, if I find myself feeling overwhelmed, do you think I should go over to the talk pages on Technical analysis and Dow theory, to find recruits to fight my battles for me? Some of the edits on those pages have been amazingly similar to edits on this one -- look for yourself if you must. It's "on record," after all -- which is important indeed, when "it's not about the argument." Rgfolsom 17:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved to criticism, added links for replies, etc.

This study you cite is a criticism, so that's where I suggest it belongs. I think it's fair to point out that your edits to the comment about Nofsinger's paper said that he doesn't mention socionomics, despite the fact that he does in his endnotes, and that his topic is 100% about social mood. Here you have quoted a paper that nowhere mentions socionomics or social mood in any fashion. The paper also fails to live up to a standard that you have demanded of my contributions from academics, namely, that they be published in a peer-reviewed journal. This paper appeared in 2005 and was presented at a conference, though now it's only on the site of the school where one of the authors is on the faculty.

Robert Prechter has replied to this study and offered what amounts to a peer review of his own. The Socionomics Institute also made certain that their check of the data was reviewed by a mathematician with a PhD in statistics, and an economist with a PhD from Oxford.

Finally, your attempt to footnote your source was done incorrectly and I fixed it. I also put in the links and sources regarding the replies to the study.

<<deleted by author because Rgfolsome does not like the point of view>> Punanimal 17:04, 15 Nov 2006 (UTC)

I think your comment is 100% correct. Not only is the appeal to authority a logical fallacy, it's often downright moronic. LTCM is only one example among many; check out this pdf doc for a good chuckle. The list of great inventions, discoveries and theories from the work of amateurs is just as impressive (and probably longer) than a similar list of the work of PhDs.

So why have I played the "PhD game"? Because I made the mistake of assuming good faith on the part of Smallbones, who demanded to see a reputable academic/university/quote -- "or anything similar." I gave him this and more, but he keeps moving the goalpost -- unless he's the one doing the quoting.

Rgfolsom 19:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Believers" and "Non-believers"

<<deleted by author because Rgfolsome does not like the point of view>> Punanimal 08:49, 16 Nov 2006 (UTC)

Punanimal, on any normative point of view in the social sciences, there will always be persons with positions on both sides of an argument, and many places inbetween. From the point of view of Wikipedia policy, that is not the point. Rather, the key questions for any entry which purports to be encyclopedic are NPOV and Verifiability in description of the theory, and of course allowing an open venue for verifiable and NPOV criticism of the theory. Any theory typically has adherents. And most have detractors. Calmer discussion would be helpful. N2e 13:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
<<deleted by author because Rgfolsome does not like the point of view>> Punanimal 10:39, 17 Nov 2006 (UTC)
Punanimal, I'm not sure what you mean about never citing yourself -- it's normal to cite your own previous work and research when it's relevant to the topic at hand. Academics do it all the time. Anyway, is it really productive to berate Prechter, especially in reply to an appeal for a calmer discussion? N2e was trying to keep things on point -- socionomics. What you said earlier about fancy degrees was a point worth making. What are ad hominem rants worth?
Rgfolsom 16:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
<<deleted by author because Rgfolsome does not like the point of view>> Punanimal 18:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sheeple

<<deleted by author because Rgfolsome does not like the point of view>> Punanimal 16:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Punanimal, I trust you'll be responsible enough to identify which of my comments on this page you consider "more than slightly Stalinist." That is, unless you think I'm just supposed to take your word for it that an insulting accusation isn't an insulting accusation. "Stalinist" actually does sorta "feel" like a "personal attack," since you mention it. I try to avoid calling people "Stalinist" for the same reason I avoid using "Nazi" -- but if did I use such words I wouldn't follow them up by telling the other person, hey, it's not personal -- it's "just a different perspective."
<<deleted by author because Rgfolsome does not like the point of view>> Punanimal 18:07, 19 Nov 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, now I understand. You can describe my words as "Stalinist," say that I'm a sheeple in a religious fervour, and tell me that I'm part of a cabal for the easily-led. But, if I ask you to defend your accusation with specifics, then I'm being touchy in the face of your calm, impersonal perspective. Makes perfect sense. If I was going to rig the rules of debate as shamelessly as you do, I suppose I'd "enjoy" it too. Sorry, I won't be inviting any other "Stalinists" to this "discussion" -- when you're ready to be serious, so am I.
Rgfolsom 20:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
<<deleted by author because Rgfolsome does not like the point of view>> left in place I am flattered that you feel I or others have the power to rig the rules of the debate. In Wikipedia however, no one individual Wikipedian has power; the Wiki process simply lets the crowd decide the truth (complete with the madness of crowds) and the debate ends up with the most-probable, or least-objectionable, answer. Maybe I am just a victim of an insane crowd psychology which dissents with the eternal truth of socionomics? I can't possibly be objective on this fact, but I am willing to have my argument laid out here for dissection and debate.
<<deleted by author because Rgfolsome does not like the point of view>> left in place Being a libertarian like I am, however, I expect all arguments to emerge, from all quarters, and to be vanquished if I and/or others am/are insufficient to win them. <<deleted by author because Rgfolsome does not like the point of view>> left in place Nonetheless, dissenters have no more or less power than you. We can only offer the interplay of competing ideas. Punanimal 23:06, 19 November 2006 (ITC)
I don't understand why you keep ranting about Prechter on the socionomics talk page. Not only have I not defended him here, I've done what I could to shift the focus away from the guy -- but even that get me accused of being one of his "sheeple." Amazing.

Rgfolsom 19:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

<<deleted by author because Rgfolsome does not like the point of view>> left in place I'm enjoying this debate. Punanimal 18:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible extension to Socionomics: Name-onomics?

Maybe it is not just collective social mood that produces social actions. I have thought for some time that names may influence behaviour, character and ambitions. An individual may tend to herd with (or be inspired by) other historical figures with his or her name. Our own goals may be modelled on others before us with similar names. And what do we make of people who have such strong feelings that they change name ?

Any thoughts? Would be interested to hear Robert Prechter's perspective on this one. GL*

[edit] Peace and love?

Rgfolsom, I've done something a little unusual here. I've deleted almost every contribution I made to this debate. I have done this to demonstrate that I do not possess the power to rig the debate. I left just a few words in place, where I stated precisely this.

I'm also completely clear that I only have an opinion and that it is not authoritative. I have no dogma to force upon people. I'm just some random person with a point of view, complete with my flaws and constrained by the imprecise tools of language. I'm also completely clear that I may be wrong in my perspective, because objectivity in such a debate is impossible. And I tried to keep my points more constructive than some of the trolling on the Yelnick blog. Perhaps I argued too strongly for you and this is something you didn't appreciate, and I admit I like a good debate. I find it stimulating; sparring can be fun if both sides understand the rules. But since my perspective seems to be something you object to, I have deleted it.

So, I hope this helps you out and stops annoying you so much. It's simply a shame that a Talk page is not a forum where everyone understands that free speech is merely that.

Peace and love, Punanimal 15:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Punanimal. I for one, appreciate any positive moves that will tone down the debate on this talk page, and keep it mostly about the Wikipedia article called Socionomics. As mentioned once before, I believe we should deal here with what will give us a decent and encyclopedic article that is both NPOV and Verifiable. Of course, criticism is welcome also, subject to those two guidelines. While my view is that a lot of the TALK on this page has not been about the topic of the article, I do complement you on keeping your debate on the talk page and mostly out of the article page; and now, also for removing a bunch of the off-topic material. N2e 19:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
If I wanted less free speech, Wikipedia is the last Internet site I'd bother with. I think the debate on this page is the most productive when it leads to a better socionomics article. If you agree, then for heaven's sake address some of the issues that have come up about the article itself. I made my case about what should/should not be in the article, other editors did likewise. Identify specifically what you agree/disagree with, and explain specifically why. That's the sort of exchange I want and hope we can have.
Rgfolsom 19:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Folsom

Robert Folsom is a financial writer and editor for Elliott Wave International, the largest independent provider of technical analysis in the world. To read more from Mr. Folsom, and to discover the value of unbiased market analysis, read Mr. Folsom’s Market Watch column on elliottwave.com. [1] [2] from Smallbones 19:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

These caught my eye: Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement and Wikipedia:Fancruft Punanimal 09:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'non-scientific' claim

I put a 'citation needed' tag on the 'non-scientific' claim in the opening line of the article. It may, or may not be, a non-scientific theory. But without a verifiable (WP:V) reference of that, this is just original research (WP:OR). (I observed this earlier; but waited for the mediation case to end and some quiet time to pass before bringing the issue up.) N2e 20:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/o/c/Talk%7ESocionomics_25e4.html"