Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Socionomics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Excerpts from "I Know What You'll Do Next Summer," New Scientist, 31 August 2002.

"Prechter's theory, which he calls socionomics, is that the units in a social system, whether they are investors, voters, music fans or shoppers, tend to base their decisions on what they see others doing. In other words, they herd. These decisions are then translated into a social mood, which shows up in indicators such as the Dow Jones, hemlines, lyrics in songs, and so on. Armed with Elliott waves, you can start forecasting all sorts of things. Indeed, Prechter has had astonishing successes with the method in areas where no one else is even trying."

"Take Major League Baseball, for example. In 1991, the sport enjoyed what some commentators felt was its most exciting season ever. Fans got so enthusiastic that a record 760,000 of them turned out to welcome the two teams returning to Atlanta and Minneapolis from the World Series, despite the fact that it was sleeting in Minneapolis. Players, owners and leagues predicted ever-increasing popularity for the sport, and cities began building new stadiums."

"But socionomics predicted exactly the opposite. Prechter plotted the go-year annual ticket sales for Major League Baseball and identified an unmistakable Elliott wave. Immediately following the 1992 season, he wrote: "If you're an investor, take profits on baseball cards. If you're a player, sign a longterm contract. If you're an owner, sell your club." In the ensuing months, the speculative bubble in baseball-card prices burst, the stock price of card maker Topps collapsed, a players' strike cancelled the 1994 World Series and the TV ratings for the World Series began a steady fall to an all-time low."

"Socionomics completely turns on its head the idea that events shape social mood. Since trends in social mood produce Elliott-wave patterns, the mood itself must follow a definite pattern. And if that's true, it certainly cannot be the result of external events, which are random and don't follow set trends. The only possible conclusion, Prechter argues, is that the direction of causation goes the other way: social mood actually shapes events. Work out the social mood by looking at stock market data, Prechter says, and you can then predict future social events."

"The accounting scandal that emerged within Enron could not have been what discouraged investors and collapsed the company. The stock market was declining in the period before the malpractice came to light, and most investors knew nothing about the shady dealing prior to or anytime during the stock market's fall. And while the scandal unfolded, primarily from November to March, the market actually grew again. Even as the Enron drama developed, investor and consumer psychology improved and stock prices rose. So what really happened? From the socionomic point of view, it was the investors who precipitated the Enron scandal, not the other way round. Stock prices had been falling for a full 18 months prior to the event. Enron stock also retreated, undermining investor support. By the time the controversy came to light, the trend toward an increasingly negative mood was already over. In fact, by late September of last year, it was time for the market to make its largest move upward in over a year-and-a-half. The psychological climate of this bull market encouraged companies to mislead investors. The mass psychology of the stock mania prompted investors to accept all manner of corporate falsehoods that reflected and reinforced their ebullient mood. So it wasn't misdoings that killed the stock prices, it was simply that crashing stock prices eventually drew attention to the corporate misdeeds. That's socionomic thinking for you."

From Technical Analysis Plain and Simple, pp. 127-128.

Another new social science, called socionomics, has gotten a following as an extension of one method of technical analysis called Elliott Wave analysis. Robert Prechter, CMT, is credited with the unique view that social mood causes events in the world, and not the other way around.

For example, stock market crashes do not make people gloomy, but gloomy people act in such a way that sets up stock market crashes. Wars, government intervention in business, corporate scandals, fashion, movies, sports, and many other non-market related trends all have their place in the ebb and flow of social mood. Prechter says that the stock market is the single best indicator of this mood in that it is immediate and has analyzable history going back for centuries. No other data stream can match that. With that in mind, he found that wars break out when bear markets are at their worst, and bubble gum music and pop culture is at its peak as bull markets approach their climaxes. Bull market sports do well when stocks do well, but the more violent major sports do better in bear markets.

It is not the waxing and waning of different parts of culture and society that affect the stock market and social mood, but social mood, as evidenced in the stock market, which creates changes in culture and society.

Again, this is beyond the scope of this book, but even novice technical analysts can use many of its observations as subjective sentiment indicators with regard to how they invest. Did the last boy band music CD do well or was the latest number-one hit darker industrial fare? Was the last blockbuster movie a Disney cartoon or a Friday the 13th gore fest? The answers help determine if the social mood is positive or negative, and may help investors determine how aggressive to be no matter if they are bull or bear.

From Behavioral Trading, p. 26.

Chaos Whups the Walk

Chaos theory actually provided a basis for directly refuting the random walk. Robert Prechter, in his book, The Wave Principle of Human Social Behavior and the New Science of Socionomics, referring to Cunningham's 1993 paper, "Unit Root Testing: A Critique from Chaos Theory" came to the following conclusion: "Neither the Samuelson-Fama tests for efficient markets nor the popularly used Dickey-Fuller (1979) test for unit roots can successfully discriminate between a fully deterministic time series, generated from a nonlinear (chaotic) process, and a random walk. A researcher applying these methods to a simple nonlinear price process would be misled into believing that such a series is a random walk." What appears to be random may never in fact be random.

--Rgfolsom 08:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] from Evidence-Based Technical Analysis

One of the works cited is Evidence-Based Technical Analysis, p. 151, which reads:

"Many of the brilliant theories of science began as half-backed prescientific ideas on the wrong side of the falsifiability criterion. These ideas needed time to develop, and one some turned into meaningful science. One example in TA is the new field of socionomics, an outgrowth of Elliott Wave Theory. At the current time, I regard this newly developing discipline as prescientific, though it may have the potential to become a science. According to a conversation I had with Professor John Nofsinger, who is working within the field of socionomics, at this time the discipline is not yet able to make testable predictions."

It seems to me that this suggests that socionomics is still too young for an article as a science. Semperf 16:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

As a criticism of the theory this is in fact a point in favor of inclusion. We don't include articles based on the question "Is this a science", but on the question "Is there sufficient discussion about this supposed science". I think a good rule of thumb is to determine if the volume of material created by the Socionomics Institute on the topic exceeds the volume of responses created by independent researchers, which seems to be the case here. ~ trialsanderrors 19:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

My edits to socionomics scrupulously avoided calling it a science. (Yes, I included that quote from Prechter, though in the "Origins" section of the article, as in the origin of the word "socionomics.") I've fought an epic battle with another editor just to say, "socionomics is a theory…" Not a "scientific" or "nonscientific" theory, simply "theory" without the adjective.

The larger point is, Monetarism didn't become a science following Friedman's Nobel, nor Prospect Theory a science after Kahneman's Nobel. Calling economics itself a "science" is thorny. Its MOST elementary rules prove chronically unreliable when predicting outcomes, such as the way prices move (or not) along the supply/demand curve in examples of actual production and consumption. "Theory" is a far safer word -- usually, anyway.

But as for your "rule of thumb"… Trialanderrors, I respectfully say that I can't take that comment seriously. How does one write something like that into a notability criterion? The quantity of "A" has exactly zero to do with the quality of "B."

I don't get it. My evidence fulfilled several of the scientific/cultural standards listed in WP:SCI, with multiple examples. But here you've raised yet another standard which is not listed in the scientific/cultural criteria, similar to what you said previously about JSTOR and classification systems. Can you please tell me how I can see this as something other than a moving target?

--Rgfolsom 21:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well there is massive material on WT:N and other relevant talk pages on how exactly to phrase special guidelines about notability. Almost all hard-line criteria ("100 cites") have been discarded in favor of "fuzzy" criteria that guide editors towards the kind of evidence they should take into account but allow for a rather broad grey area which editors have to fill in with their own judgement of the evidence. That creates diversity in opinions, but the decision is based on the interpretation of the pivotal editor, someone who is somewhere in the middle in the spectrum of interpretations. The "Independent" > "Original" criterion is certainly mine, and I don't expect it to be adopted by others. If I find myself outside of consensus with it, then so be it. I call it a rule of thumb because it by itself is fuzzy, meaning after first review of the available material it can tell me "yes", "no", or "needs further research". It's simply a proxy that allows for efficient research on deletion debates while at the same time ensuring that problematic topics get more scrutiny. On quality, if the main proponent offers a text named "Plain and simple" as scientific textbook and papers sponsored by the Socionomic Foundation as main evidence in favor of notability I think I can use that as good estimator that endorsement from prominent advocates (other than the originator) is hard to come by. If you think it targets socionomics unfairly, check out the AfD listings at Special:Whatlinkshere/Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms and notice how most neologisms are routinely deleted. ~ trialsanderrors 23:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Faith/Bad Faith Standard(s)

I am a relative newbie who is impressed by the smart and articulate people who are volunteering massive amounts of time to try to make wikipedia work. Progress (in anything) is always messy, and this nomination is a study in that. If I can make an observation, please, without stepping on any of those well-meaning toes: It seems clear that an assumption of good faith by an initiating party generally begets good faith in response. On the other hand, an assumption of bad faith on the part of an initiator is almost guaranteed bad faith in response. This must be as true on wikipedia as it is in the real world, if not moreso because of wikipedia's anonymity. Anyway, when a move to delete clearly assumes good faith on the part of contributors to an article, then the nominating editor has a right to expect that assumption in return -- despite the fact his nominating act is implicitly aggressive in nature. But when the nominator’s implied (or stated) stance is that the contributor has labored in bad faith, well, he should pretty much expect bad faith in return. We (or the wikipedia community) should not then hold the respondent to a higher standard of conduct than the initiator! In fact, some might argue the reverse is closer to the appropriate stance.

I'm sure I'm not the first person to raise this issue on wikipedia. It seems particularly applicable here. Thanks for the chance to articulate it.--MarkA12 19:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you had a chance to read assume the assumption of good faith? There's a few good points there. Semperf 23:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Semperf. Points taken. If you don't mind my asking: Are you aware of anything within wikipedia that helps an editor establish and communicate a sincere assumption of good faith when initiating an action as contentious as an AfD motion?--MarkA12 02:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the original nominator. Things are a bit rough-and-tumble in the AfD, and actually I think my rhetoric was pretty harsh and I do regret it -- I certaintly would not be as aggressive in a discussion on a talk page, come to think of it. WP:AGF is a good guideline and doing the nom again I think I would have been more liberal with the GF. Sdedeo (tips) 05:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sdedeo, good of you to say that. Would that we could go back and refocus the nom/reaction at this late date! Anyway, perhaps some experienced nominators like you would be willing to develop a list of nom guidelines from this perspective (unless one exists already?). Maybe I'm showing my inexperience again here -- but it seems as though such a, what, "AfD Nomination Tone" guideline might end up saving time in the long run, especially as wikipedia ends up with more of these noms as the encyclopedia continues to mature and the greater need shifts away from volume. Crafting an AfD nom that does not generate an angry reaction from active contributors -- now there's an idyllic goal! But one worth striving for, for many practical and ideal reasons. Best. --MarkA12 09:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mark -- I have a feeling Robert would be flipping out however the nom was phrased, unfortunately! Sdedeo (tips) 19:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, you may be right. Hope you consider my suggestion; you'd do a good job. Best.--MarkA12 01:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)