The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as a separate subject; optionally merge some content to Robert Prechter. Redirecting there in the meantime.

Discussion. — This is a very unwieldy discussion, so for the sake of efficiency I am simply discounting anything written by Rgfolsom (talk · contribs), who is being paid to promote and defend Robert Prechter's concept of "socionomics" and has a conflict of interest. As volunteer editors, we are simply not playing in the same league as he.

For the reasons laid out at WP:ATA, I am also discounting the pure votes of Chrislk02, Rocksanddirt, Jossi and Piotrus (keep) as well as Sdedeo, Ghirlandajo and Orangemike (delete).

The remainder of the discussion circulates around whether "socionomics" is a sufficiently notable topic of discourse, as measured through the extent of its coverage by suitable reliable sources. Given the ream of citations that have been provided, it is appropriate to gauge consensus on the basis of those editors who indicate in their comments that they have actually attempted to check up the sources, and discounting those who simply say "it has many sources" (JulesH, Alansohn, Robertknyc) or "it's a fraud / it's COI" (Realkyhick, Gavin Collins, Smerdis of Tlön, Guy, Haemo)

Based on the editors who say that they have looked more closely at the sources, we have a preponderance of opinion to delete (trialsanderrors, THF, EdJohnston, Cool Hand Luke, John Carter, Ministry) versus keep (N2e, BenB4, Sposer). Other policy-substiantiated opinions for deletion include those of TheOtherBob and Calton. This is a determinative consensus to delete.

Finally, several editors advocate a strongly reduced merge to Robert Prechter, which does not appear to contradict the present consensus outlined above, i.e., the topic is insufficiently notable for its own article. Accordingly, I am closing this debate as a "delete", but I am redirecting the article to Robert Prechter to allow for a merger to take place, if consensus should develop among editors for such a move. Sandstein 07:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Socionomics

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Socionomics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Recreation of an article that was deleted after the first AfD. The text is sufficiently different to require a second AfD, but the fundamental problems are unchanged: CoI-authored article on a financial neologism with insufficient currency in the financial market literature, essentially trying to piggyback on the emergent behavioral finance literature (e.g. Robert Shiller) to create the impression that this is a notable new concept in finance. The evidence (keeping in mind that contemporary finance produces massive amounts of academic and professional literature} is still extremely sparse and most sources are either unrelated or lead back to Robert Prechter and his Socionomics Institute. In short, a big smokescreen for a fringe concept with the flimsiest of scientific backing. ~ trialsanderrors 00:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editors who read the article and the facts below can judge for themselves whether the evidence is “sparse.” They can also decide if dozens of sources (not related to Prechter) can in fact amount to “a big smokescreen.”

The administrator who closed the AfD said it was "principally about whether 'Socionomics' is -- currently -- a sufficiently notable scientific concept (or term) to be included in Wikipedia." When challenged regarding "scientific concept," he said: "At issue was not mainly WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR, but whether the subject was notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, or whether it was a nonnotable neologism used almost exclusively (and promoted by) your employer."[1]

Thus the two relevant criterion are notability and neologism:

  1. Notability says, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."
  2. Neologism says, "If you have research to support the inclusion of a term in the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner."
(The closing admin did not mention an argument made repeatedly in the AfD, namely that socionomics fails to meet undue weight. This criterion does not apply to article topics as such. NPOV undue weight addresses differences of opinion within an article -- as in, the lesser weight of minority opinions vs. the greater weight of majority opinions regarding the same topic. The example used in the undue weight discussion makes this obvious, namely that the earth article only very briefly refers to the flat earth theory. To underscore the point, NPOV undue weight also says: "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them — Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia.")

The evidence below shows “significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject,” including “results published in a peer-reviewed journal” and in “reputable news outlets.”

Books with a non-trivial mention of socionomics

  1. Behavioral Trading, p. 26.[2]
  2. Technical Analysis Plain and Simple, pp. 127-128.[3]
  3. Evidence-Based Technical Analysis, p. 151.[4]
  4. The New Laws of the Stock Market Jungle p. 269.[5]
  5. The Irwin Guide to Using the Wall Street Journal, p. 354.[6]
  6. Applying Elliott Wave Theory Profitably, p. 179.[7]
  7. Hot Trading Secrets: How to Get In and Out of the Market with Huge Gains, p. 7, 35, 53.[8]
  8. Secrets of the Underground Trader, p. 273.[9]
  9. The Book of Investing Wisdom: Classic Writings by Great Stock-Pickers and Legends of Wall Street, pp. 263-272, Peter Krass Editor (Prechter essay, "Elvis, Frankenstein and Andy Warhol").[10]
  10. How Do We Create a Philosophical Cosmos for Acting Socially and Being Happy? [11]
  11. The Wave Principle of Human Social Behavior and the New Science of Socionomics,[12] Robert Prechter.
  12. Pioneering Studies In Socionomics, [13] Robert Prechter.

Peer-reviewed journal papers dedicated to socionomics

  1. Robert R. Prechter Jr. (2001), "Unconscious Herding Behavior as the Psychological Basis of Financial Market Trends and Patterns," Journal of Psychology and Financial Markets, Vol. 2, No. 3: pages 120-125. (document here)
  2. John Nofsinger (2005), "Social Mood and Financial Economics," Journal of Behavioral Finance, Vol. 6, no. 3, pages 144-160. (The author's use of "social mood" is synonymous with socionomics document here.)
  3. Kenneth R. Olson (2006), "A Literature Review of Social Mood," Journal of Behavioral Finance, Vol. 7, No. 4 (abstract here), pages 193-203.
  4. Robert R. Prechter Jr. and Wayne D. Parker (2007), "The Financial/Economic Dichotomy in Social Behavioral Dynamics: The Socionomic Perspective," Journal of Behavioral Finance, vol. 8 no. 2 (abstract here), pp. 84-108.

University lectures and Conference papers/presentations

by Robert Prechter
  1. The Kenos Circle: Oil Puzzle Conference
    March 16-17, 2006, Vienna, Austria
    “Peak Oil Or Peak Prices?”
  2. The Socionomics Institute
    SUNY College at Plattsburgh
    November 3, 2005 - Plattsburgh, New York
    "The Socionomic Model of Financial and Social Causality"
  3. Canadian Society of Technical Analysts
    Montreal Annual Conference
    October 15, 2005 - Montreal, Canada
    "The Socionomic Model of Financial and Social Causality"
  4. Market Technicians Association
    MTA Education Seminar 2005
    May 19-22, 2005 - New York City, NY
    Two-part introduction to socionomics
  5. The Socionomics Institute
    April 8, 2005 - Cambridge, MA
    "The Socionomic Model of Financial and Social Causality"
  6. Georgia Tech University
    April 6, 2005 - Atlanta, GA
    Prechter addressed the university's Quantitative Computational Finance students.
  7. First International Workshop on Intelligent Finance - A Convergence of Mathematical Finance with Technical and Fundamental Analysis (IWIF)
    University of Ballarat
    December 13, 2004 - Melbourne, Australia
  8. International Federation of Technical Analysts
    5th Annual Technical Analysis Expo
    March 19-20, 2004 - Paris, France
    "Fundamentals of Socionomics."
  9. London School of Economics and Political Science
    March 18, 2004 - London, England
    "Socionomics - Social Mood as the Engine of Social Activity."
  10. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Laboratory for Financial Engineering, Sloan School of Management
    September 12, 2003 - Cambridge, MA
    "Fundamentals of Finance and Socionomics."
  11. Neuro-economics Conference
    September 18-21, 2003 - Martha's Vineyard, MA
  12. Emory University, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences
    February 2003 - Atlanta, GA
by John Casti, Ph.D
  1. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)
    A seminar sponsored by the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation titled: “Globalization as Evolutionary Process: Modeling, Simulating, and Forecasting Global Change”
    April 6-8, 2006, Laxenburg, Austria
    “The Decline and Fall of Globalization”
  2. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) Zurich
    Teleconferenced lecture broadcasted from SHARE/Consulate of Switzerland, in Cambridge
    April 20, 2006, Boston, USA
    "Why the Future Happens: Socionomics and the Science of Surprise."
  3. University of Warwick, Socio-Dynamics Seminar
    May 9-11, 2005 - London, England
  4. Economics Department, University of Otago Departmental Seminar
    July 21, 2004 - Hamilton, New Zealand
  5. University of Nevada, Economics Department, Departmental seminar
    July 21, 2004 - Hamilton, New Zealand
  6. 9th Annual Meeting on Artificial Life and Robotics
    July 21, 2004 - Hamilton, New Zealand
  7. Conference on Philosophy and Complexity
    July 21, 2004 - Hamilton, New Zealand
  8. London School of Economics and Politics, Complexity Research Programme meeting.
    July 21, 2004 - Hamilton, New Zealand
  9. Brazilian National Super Computer Center
    August 21, 2003 - Petropolis, Brazil
  10. Massey University seminar in Applied Math Department
    July 23-25, 2003 - Albany, New Zealand (Auckland)
  11. Australian Center for Industrial Research and Operational Management
    July 11, 2003 - Melbourne, Australia
by Michael K. Green, Ph.D., SUNY College at Oneonta
  1. The Economic History Research Area of the European Association of Evolutionary Political Economy (EAEPE)
    and the Economic Policy Laboratory (EMOP-Athens University of Economics and Business) Joint Colloquium, May 12-13, 2006, Athens, Greece
    Athens University of Economics and Business
  2. "The variety of economic institutions under the many forms of capitalism"
    Philosophy, Interpretation, and Culture Conference
    April 22-23, 2005 - Binghamption University, NY
    "Social Ontologies and the Basis of the Social Sciences"
  3. Association for Institutional Thought (AFIT) 2005
    April 13-16, 2005 - Albuquerque, New Mexico
    "Institutions and Social Ontologies"
  4. Northeast Popular Culture Association Conference
    October 30, 2004 - Newbury College, Brookline, MA
    "Finding Nemo and the Social Expression of Optimism"
  5. Second International Conference on New Directions in the Humanities
    July 20-23, 2004 - Monash University Centre, Prato, Tuscany, Italy
    Conference Theme: New Directions in the Humanities
    "Humanistic Economics: Placing Economics on Ancient Foundations"
  6. 2004 Annual Conference of the International Association for Critical Realism (IACR)
    August 17-19, 2004 - Cambridge University, England
    Conference Theme: Theorizing Social Ontology
    "Mechanistic, Teleological, and Formological Ontologies"
  7. Association for Heterodox Economics Annual Conference 2004
    July 16-18, 2004 - University of Leeds, UK
    Conference Theme: New Directions in Economics
    "Formological Economics and the Coming Collapse of the American Economy"
  8. Association for Institutional Thought Annual Conference 2003
    April 11-14, 2004 - Salt Lake City, Utah
    Conference Theme: Institutional Economics
    "Formological Economics and the Collapse of the American Economy: Veblen and Emulative Desire"
  9. The International Confederation of Associations for Pluralism in Economics
    June 5-7, 2003 - University of Missouri at Kansas City, Kansas
    Conference Theme: New Directions in Economics
    "Orthodoxic Inversion, Multi-State Stability, and Economic Pluralism"
by Wayne Parker, Ph.D., Emory University (inactive status)
  1. International Conference on Cognitive Economics
    August 5-8, 2005 - New Bulgarian University
    "Herding: An Interdisciplinary Integrative Review from a Socionomic Perspective"
  2. Association for Heterodox Economics
    July 14-16, 2006, London, England
    "The Socionomic Theory of Finance and the Institution of Social Mood"
  3. Joint Annual Congress of the International Association for Research in Economic Psychology (IAREP) and the Society for the Advancement of Behavioral Economics (SABE)
    July 5-8, 2006 - Paris, France
    "Methodological Individualism vs. Methodological Holism: Neoclassicism, Institutionalism and Socionomic Theory"

Further academic recognition of socionomics

Reliable and extensive secondary source coverage of socionomics

Search engine A Google search for "socionomics" brings some 52,000 results -- and those exclude results from elliottwave.com, socionomics.net, and socionomics.org. Around 2,300 of the Google search results are non-English language, thus socionomics has some international notability.

Socionomics in practice

--Rgfolsom 05:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

convenience break for non-Folsom remarks

[edit]
Remarks about WP:NPA from THF should be seen light of his recent incivility, name-calling, and unfounded suggestions of bad faith.--Rgfolsom 16:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Full disclosure: I work in and read a lot in the field of heterodox economics, I was aware of the socionomic hypothesis from several years back. I made a couple of edits to the 'orginal' Socionomics article in the past. N2e 02:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of ostensible reliable sources above extremely misleading

[edit]
  • Reply THF’s accusations are false. On the talk page I’ve posted the quotations regarding socionomics in the four books he mentions, including the quotations that he claims are not there at all. If he had asked me by email or talk page, I could readily have explained how to use the Amazon and Google book searches -- it's clear that he prefers to call my good faith into question instead of checking facts first. I’ll continue to check that list and post the quotes on the talk page as I retrieve them.--Rgfolsom 18:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surreply Yes, please look at the talk page, because the quotes there confirm that it is simply not true that the books listed by Rgfolsom have a "non-trivial mention of socionomics" -- and the only one that arguably does treats socionomics as indistinguishable from Prechter. (The others don't mention socionomics at all, or only mention the website or only in referring to he title of one of Prechter's books.) And keep in mind that Rgfolsom was the one who chose these quotes as support for his claims; presumably the books he didn't list are even weaker. THF 21:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh, no, sir, I said that according to a particular search engine available on the link you provided, the term isn't in the book at all. Which is 100% true. Meanwhile, as of 1:24 31 July, you've listed quotes from seven books on the talk page, presumably your seven most persuasive examples, and not a single one of them is a "non-trivial mention of socionomics", (and, more relevant for this discussion, none of them refer to socionomics as a discipline separate from Prechter's head) though you falsely represented that all of them were "non-trivial mention of socionomics." THF 01:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bluster and accusations aside, the face-value meaning of “non-trivial mention” is pretty simple.
  1. Nontrivial is the opposite of “insignificant.”
  2. Mention means “cite” or “reference.” So,
  3. “Non-trivial mention” means a significant reference to or citation of.
The authors of those books consider socionomics significant enough to cite or refer to, per the quotes on the talk page. See how simple?--Rgfolsom 03:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please be civil. Seriously, this is re-hashing the same debate from a few months ago - do we have to have the same incivility, too? In any event, your argument misses the point. A non-trivial mention is a mention that's not trivial. Your point seems to boil down to "they mentioned it, therefore it's significant enough to mention and therefore a non-trivial mention." Respectfully, that's a non-sequitur - it's only a non-trivial mention if it's a mention that's. . . not trivial. (Otherwise we'd just call them "mentions.") --TheOtherBob 04:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't pleased with incivility then or now. I know how this process works. I'm fully aware that all sources can and probably will be checked. I included all the sources on this page in good faith, deliberating trying to make verification as easy as possible. I'd be an idiot to try to mislead other editors – but exercising good faith means giving the benefit of the doubt, which is certainly not the case with THF’s attack: “extremely extremely misleading,” “false list,” etc. A trivial mention is one that appears in a list or chronology or some such – in my view that is different than an author drawing attention to a topic or issue in his text, or in the book’s references. And in none of the books I cited do I believe the author would consider their inclusion of socionomics to be “trivial.”--Rgfolsom 04:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I'm talking to both of you in that. --TheOtherBob 04:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I respectfully point out that this is another argument without an argument, specifically per nominator, etc. – “It is important to keep in mind that every listing of an article for deletion is not a vote, but rather a discussion.” This “Keep per…” amounts only to a vote to be counted, hence it should be discounted.--Rgfolsom 08:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

convenience break (synthesis problem discussion)

[edit]
  • Comment. Agreed. The article itself has extensive quotes from Freud, Mackay, and others who have nothing to do with socionomics; there's a severe WP:NOR (or at least WP:SYN) problem. This is not an independent reason to delete the article (there are plenty of those noted above); it is, however, reason to note that the extensive sourcing in the article if one were to glance at it is largely illusory, and will disappear should editors without a COI give the article the severe scrubbing it needs. I've attempted to add tags, but Rgfolsom is edit-warring, so the tags may not be there at any given time. THF 00:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I respectfully point out that there is no synthesis in the socionomics article. WP:SYN forbids an editor taking two reliable sources (A and B) and joining them “to advance position C.” But in the socionomics article, each instance of the so-called “synthesis” describes the work of one source alone, complete with quotes. There is no joining of a second source, hence no “synthesis” to advance a third position. As for WP:OR, there are no "arguments" or even "analysis" in the article that is not properly referenced. Observation of facts is not original research, so perhaps Cool Hand Luke can explain where he sees SYN and OR.--Rgfolsom 01:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A = "Prechter calls Socionomics is the study of social mood." B = Freud related herd instinct to separation anxiety. Impermissible statement C = Freud's research is similar to socionomics. B can't be cited unless it is specifically about socionomics. THF 01:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply:
  1. The article observes that “socionomics posits that social mood trends result from humans’ unconscious impulse to herd in contexts of uncertainty,” because that is what Prechter and Parker published in the Journal of Behavioral Finance.
  2. The articles observes that Freud said, “Opposition to the herd is as good as separation from it, and is therefore anxiously avoided....The herd instinct would appear to be something primary...”
  3. The article observes that those two observations are similar – but a “similarity” is not “C,” a third position. To observe similarity is not even “analysis,” much less an “argument.” How on earth does noting the similarity of two observations amount to joining those positions into the third position mentioned in WP:SYN? If noting a similarity really is a “synthesis” that amounts to a “third position,” in what way does this third position “C” differ from A and B? If C is not different from A or from B, then where is the synthesis? Answer the question(s), please.--Rgfolsom 02:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is the editor noting the similarity, not an verifiable reliable source. That's the very definition of original research; the C claim is merely the editor's unsourced analysis. (Indeed, the WP:SYN example is an editor noting the contradiction between sourced claim A and unrelated sourced claim B.) You would surely (and correctly) object if I noted the similarity between socionomics and biorhythms and put that in the page, though I could surely find a biorhythms book that says stuff indistinguishable from Prechter -- indeed, you did object when I noted the similarity between technical analysis and financial astrology, even as that was able to be sourced. One can add Freud to the See also section, but putting it in the main text without sourcing is a synthesis that violates OR. If a verifiable reliable source made the observation, then one could add "Dr. Quackenbush of Huxley college noted the similarity between Freud's theory of herd and socionomics," but that's not for editors to do. THF 03:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: I do not believe you have answered my questions: There was Parker and Prechter’s position on herding (A), and there was Freud’s position on herding (B). What, exactly, is the third position (C) on herding that came from the synthesis of A & B? How is C different from A & B?
Any editor who goes to WP:SYN will see an example of a real (and unacceptable) synthesis: Smith takes the position (A) that Jones committed plagiarism. Jones takes the position (B) that he did not commit plagiarism. In an article about the controversy, a Wikipedia editor comes along and in the article and takes the position (C) that Jones is right because of the what the Chicago Manual of Style says about plagiarism. The synthesis is in the editor joining Jones’ position (B) with the Chicago Manual of Style to produce position (C), that Jones didn’t do it.
This has nothing to do with your description of the SYN example, “an editor noting the contradiction between sourced claim A and unrelated sourced claim B.” The real example also has nothing to do with the socionomics article observing that A and B are similar. There is no C.
As for your hypothetical, if you have a reference that satisfies Wikipedia’s definition of reliable source, and the source includes quotations about biorhythms that are plainly similar to quotes from reliable sources about socionomics, then I have zero grounds to claim WP:SYN if you include those quotes (and sources) in the article.
Finally, you produced no reliable sources whatsoever to back the claim that financial astrology is similar to technical analysis, and you cannot produce a diff showing otherwise. What you did was type “financial astrology technical analysis” into Google, and expect other editors to regard the search results as “evidence.” My objection was RS, not SYN, although I can’t overlook what you yourself imply here -- namely that your comparison was SYN and OR of the very sort you so emphatically object to now.
Please answer the questions.--Rgfolsom 05:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Actually, the example at WP:SYN says that the second source (from the Chicago Manual of Style) cannot be introduced unless someone has previously concluded that it was relevant to the first source. Notice how proposition "C" is not stated either in the example or in this article's synthesis—it doesn't say Jones is wrong, just that he is speaking contrary to another definition. Besides, we have trivially obvious synthesis in the section headings, which claim a heretofore unpublished similarity between Socionomics and earlier ideas. Cool Hand Luke 05:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Excuse me Luke, I think you’re mistaken. Proposition “C” certainly IS stated in the WP:SYN example, exactly as I explained it: the example’s conclusion says that the editor’s comment is “original research, because it expresses the editor's opinion that, given the Chicago Manual of Style's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it.”
I have rebutted the argument that “similarity equals synthesis,” and my rebuttal is unanswered. For you to merely repeat that argument is no more of an answer than is THF’s silence. If the synthesis is “trivially obvious,” it should be “trivially easy” to answer this question: What is the third position (C) on herding that came from the synthesis of Prechter/Parker (A) & Freud (B)?
This AfD is supposed to be a discussion, not a series of gratuitous assertions. Please advance the discussion, Luke.--Rgfolsom 08:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are turning this into Argument Clinic. I didn't respond because Luke covered the waterfront. As has been noted several times on this page by three different editors, the improper synthesis/OR is the section title claiming that Freud is "similar" to Prechter. That's an unsourced claim, based solely on the synthesis of two sourced claims that do not relate to the topic "similarity between socionomics and Freud." Neither Freud nor the synthesis should be in the article. That's a straightforward application, and your only response is "No, it isn't." This is getting tendentious and disruptive. Please take it to the Talk:NOR page, where you can find many more people to educate you about Wikipedia policy, since you don't want to listen to the three people who have repeatedly explained it to you here. THF 11:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Ted and Luke on this - the synthesis they're identifying is the assertion of similarity the article makes. No one is claiming that "similarity" and "synthesis" are the same thing, anymore than an argument that says "your discussion of a trout is a non-sequitur" means that trout are non-sequiturs. (Which they're obviously not - they're red herrings.) And now for a meta-argument ("no it's not!") - "I already rebutted X" isn't an argument - it's a claim. Since a claim doesn't actually present any argument for itself, the only logical response is "your claim is false." I see this all the time - someone will say something like "I already established notability, so how can you continue to argue for deletion?" Well, the answer is that the person did not, in fact, establish notability...that's what the debate's about. -TheOtherBob 16:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

convenience break (August remarks)

[edit]
  • Reply: I wrote the article, so I'll try to reply as best I can. I'm truly unaware of the mystical element in socionomics that you're asking about. I've known Prechter a long time -- apart from the topics in his books and writings (markets, socionomics), the only thing that I know he's hard-core about is libertarian politics. He's not into esoteric, way off-beat stuff.
I don't want to seem like I'm dismissing your question, so maybe you could briefly explain here what you have in mind about mentioning the mystical aspect, or in more detail on the talk page. I agree that the debate about the sources is important: perhaps you've noticed that I'm dancing as fast as I can to answer editors and the points they make, whether good or silly. Obviously some of the references are more relevant that other, but I figured too many was far better than not enough, in part to show that socionomics is being noticed and discussed in many places. Hope this helps,--Rgfolsom 08:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about "The same ratio governs growth and decay processes found in nature and expanding and contracting phenomena found throughout the universe" in http://www.socionomics.net/archive/social_progress.aspx ? --Pgreenfinch 12:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the socionomics article includes a similar quotation from Prechter: "In humans, an unconscious herding impulse impels social mood trends and changes that are specifically patterned according to a natural growth principle [that] is the engine of cultural expression and social action." The “Current Research” section of the article also quotes Prechter and Parker’s paper in the Journal of Behavioral Finance: “…uncertainty about valuations by other homogeneous agents induces unconscious, non-rational herding, which follows endogenously regulated fluctuations in social mood, which in turn determine financial fluctuations.” That’s a mouthful of academic prose, but the idea is precisely the same. So I hope you see that while the article doesn’t dwell on the idea in great detail, it clearly is included. Hope this helps.--Rgfolsom 04:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on the fact that having reviewed some of this earlier I see few if any sources other than Prather that actually use the word "socionomics", and on that basis I believe the article may well qualify under the neologism provision, unless specific outside instances of the use of the word itself are found. John Carter 14:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There are several mentions and discussions of socionomics in the citations I provided above – on the talk page I’ve also just added quotes from a recently published book by Michael Green, Professor of Philosophy at the State University of New York. Green and John Casti have spoken frequently about socionomics, and they are academics in their own right. Please also check the links under “Further Academic Recognition,” “Reliable and extensive secondary source coverage of socionomics,” and “Socionomics in practice.” Several of those are independent of Prechter.
still Delete - A case may be made for the need for an article on "social mood in economics" with socionomics as one of the terms for it; but that would be Original Research. --Orange Mike 15:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neologism, moving desired content into behavioral finance, social mood, or prechter articles as necessary. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 17:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment:I can only wish that I had a couple of research assistants feeding me clips on command. The truth is that many or most of the citations come from the time I spent on Google and other archive searchs, because I wanted to make it possible for editors to check those sources. That duly noted, all I can say in addition is that if you have a problem with me and Prechter, please make your decision based on the independent sources. You mention Olson’s paper; the link to the abstract is there with the cite, and he does talk about socionomics:

    Emotions exert a significant influence on financial behavior. The "socionomic hypothesis" posits social mood, the collective mood of individuals, as a primary causal variable in financial and social trends. In order to provide a scientific basis for the study of social mood, this article reviews psychological research on major mood-related elements of personality: affect, motivation, and personality traits.

Please take these facts into account and reconsider your decision.--Rgfolsom 04:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was asked to read the Prechter/Parker 2007 paper that formed the basis of the rewrite of this article and comment on its scientific value. My verdict is this: the authors display an ignorance of economic concepts at such a fundamental level that the inclusion in the journal shows that the Journal of Behavioral Finance lacks the editorial oversight we require to consider a source reliable. A key thrust of the paper is the argument that financial markets are fundamentally different from standard economic markets and that economic analysis fails to incorporate the differences. The authors support this with graphs of long-run ownership of computers vs. stock compared to their respective price levels, showing that computer ownership increased over time while prices dropped while stock ownership increased even though prices increased. The computer graph holds a vague resemblance to the standard X-shape of the common supply and demand model in economics, while the stock graph does not. In addition, the authors note that since anyone can buy and sell stocks at any given time, everybody is a buyer and seller, so distinguishing those types does not make sense. As an alternative they offer a model with only a demand curve, which is upward-sloping. All of this is of course nonsense. For one, the computer graph has nothing to do with a supply-and-demand graph, which captures intentions at a moment in time, while the computer graph captures transactions over a long time period. Changes in ownership over time are usually triggered by changes in wealth and changing consumer preferences more so than changing prices. Also, the X shape is not particularly typical for "standard" economic markets. Car ownership has increased over time even though cars have become more expensive. Similarily, gas consumption in the long run has increased with increasing gas prices. For two, the idea that someone can be a seller and buyer is nothing special in standard economics, it's known as a durbale goods market. I can buy a house at time t, own it for n periods and sell it in t+n. As a real estate speculator I can do this with multiple assets at the same time. I will still only be a buyer or a seller for a particular asset X, as I either own it or not own it. For three, the theoretical case of an upward-sloping demand curve is known as a Giffen good and is generally considered a hypothetical form, although under extreme market conditions (e.g. severe famine) it might arise. It certainly does not arise in financial markets. It implies that at the same time I would sell my asset at $40 and buy it at $60, losing $20 without any change in ownership. The JBE is a mainstream journal, but it lacks the history, selectivity and oversight to be considered reliable, and it certainly does not meet the "widely cited" requirement for inclusion. ~ trialsanderrors 20:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It doesn't surprise me that Prechter's paper is hogwash (as it is not an "independent" reliable source, it shouldn't have any WP:NEO weight anyway), but I wonder if it goes too far to knock out the entire Journal from the WP:RS on the basis of one pseudoscientific article. I can think of lots of journals that have published absolute garbage, from the Harvard Law Review to Lancet to Journal of American History and beyond, yet surely qualify as reliable sources notwithstanding the occasional bad apple. JBF has some surprisingly prestigious editors for a journal that prints so much krep. But perhaps it still flunks the "widely cited" criterion. THF 22:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I wasn't commenting on the value of the article, just the journal. However, I would point out that there is academic evidence for an upward-sloping demand curve in the case of stocks, as per papers finding a momentum effect (although I don't remember how long-term the momentum effect is estimated to be). As prices rise in a stock, more people are drawn in to buy it. In fact, it is a basic tenet of TA that volume should increase as prices rise. I am not anything like an expert in Behavioral Finance, but since TA is, IMO, the application of behavioral finance to trading data from the markets, I would assume that Behavioral Finance recognizes this phenomena as well. There are specific strategies that buy breakouts. I do not know if this is what Prechter is getting at, but this is absolutely reasonable. Beyond that, there is certainly a relationship to wealth, but much of the wealth that was created (and destroyed), for example, in the mid-1990s to early-2000s, was via the equity market. Commodities were falling, and real estate did not take off until stocks cracked.Sposer 23:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: trialsanderrors can take up his problem with the editors who administer the peer review at the Journal of Behavioral Finance. The socionomics article plainly satisfies the face-value language of WP:N and WP:NEO.--Rgfolsom 00:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addition: All of us agree that "flimsy" science cannot advance human understanding. The question is, "Which is the flimsy science?" trialsanderrors's comment represents the conventional economic thinking that has been embattled for three decades because it fails to answer crucial aspects of economic and financial behavior. He also seems to be arguing against the distinguished editors of the JBF, which is fine. But their decision to run the paper on socionomics means that the subject is open to academic debate and therefore is notable at the highest level.--Rgfolsom 18:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re THF, I would not trust any theory that is sourced to a single journal article, even if the article is in a first-tier journal. The difference is that articles in first-tier journals usually trigger a response, especially when they contain garbage. Crappy articles in fourth-tier journals are usually ignored. Hence the "widely cited" requirement, which this article clearly doesn't meet. Re Sposer, what you're talking about is an upward shift of the (downward-sloping) demand curve (aka Veblen effect), not an upward-sloping demand curve (aka Giffen good). ~ trialsanderrors 15:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: To get back to the issue:
  1. WP:V: “The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.”
  2. WP:N: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."
  3. WP:NEO: "If you have research to support the inclusion of a term in the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner."
The socionomics article hits the bull’s eye of all three targets in multiple instances. Now to claim that the references themselves must be “widely cited” (etc., etc.) amounts to moving the targets.--Rgfolsom 18:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree with the above. I can see adding much/most of the content of this article to either the Prechter article and/or an individual user's userspace, and then file for dispute resolution regarding the matter of this existing as a separate article. I get the impression, with all respect to both sides, that the crux of this problem is the number and strength of independent references to the concept by this word, and this is not the appropriate place to hold such a discussion. John Carter 15:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: I appreciate the good faith comments from dab and John Carter. I would love to find a less heated and less-high stakes forum to discuss the issues that other editors have with the socionomics article. That is what the talk page is for, and anyone who reads the first AfD will see that my principle objection then was that the nominator made no attempt to follow the steps spelled out in WP:AFD, such as first adding a cleanup tag or sharing reservations about the article on its talk page. That applies this time as well. There was no discussion about the article or my considerable attempts to improve it. It’s a death penalty case from the start, complete with pejoratives from the nominator like “piggyback,” “smokescreen,” “flimsiest,” etc.
Almost five days later we’ve come full circle, with the quality of the discussion deteriorating to the point that some editors see fit to claim that a respected, peer-reviewed academic journal publishes “crappy articles” and “pseudoscience.” I don’t see rolling socionomics into Prechter’s bio as an option -- at least one knowledgeable admin has said that is not acceptable. I do not own the article, and I’m all for edits to make it better (per dab), as well as for a discussion of the article’s merits and sources in dispute resolution (per John Carter). What I’m not for is taking it down when it plainly satisfies the language of V, N, and NEO.--Rgfolsom 18:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rgfolsom misrepresents yet another source. The admin who said a merger was not acceptable mistakenly thought that the proposal was to delete the Prechter article, and hasn't even seen the reasoning for a merger of the Socionomics article discussed on this page: "I do not see such a discussion. In any case, this article is a biography, and if the person passes the notability test, a bio should be kept and not merged." The critical language in the WP:N policies Folsom quotes is independent and significant, and that Prechter keeps writing about his unusued neologism is not independent, and, as the detailed discussion on the talk page to this AfD shows, the independent coverage is not significant. Editors can make a mistake from time to time, but Rgfolsom's mistakes in characterizing other sources are so frequent, and invariably in support of his COI, that, at a minimum, assuming the most good faith, his arguments suffer from severe confirmation bias. From improperly recreating the page to sending dozens of editors on a wild-goose-chase figuring out that his cites are faulty, Rgfolsom's COI-related edits have been severely disruptive, and admins should take action if WP:COI is to mean anything. THF 18:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Jossi can more than speak for himself, but the time stamps show that he came to this page and voted “Keep” well after dab, orange mike, coolhand luke and scottjar had already suggested a merger. Editors can check the time stamps for themselves, and check Prechter’s bio and talk page for what Jossi said. As for a confirmation bias, I am not the editor who claimed that books don’t include a word when they do, whose own biases (and incivility) are reflected by words like “pseudoscience” “hogwash” “crap” “quackery” and “astrology,” who calls other editors “snake oil salesmen” and “astrologers,” who levels frivolous accusations of “vandalism” and “faked evidence,” plus -- and least surprising of all -- has the chutzpah to ask administrators on this page to “investigate” another editor for conduct unbecoming.--Rgfolsom 20:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:COOL, I won't waste everyone's time by repeating the refutations of the false accusations levied at me here since they already appear on this page. I apologize for my anger at the dishonesty of others, but I sure hope persistence and kitchen-sink tactics do not overwhelm the sound Wiki policy for deletion. THF 21:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The term is clearly notable, but the article may not tell the full story. A 1986 review of The Moral Order (1983, by Raoul Narroll) states that "The method of looking for a better society is named 'socionomics'." I don't have access to the book, but I wonder if either Narroll or Veenhoven (the reviewer) refer to Prechter's work (doubt it), or if the term had an established meaning already. The term was also mentioned in 1965 in "Towards a Synthetization of the Sciences" by Matthew L. Lamb, apparently to denote a cross of sociology and geology. – Therefore, I'd rather have a better article than a redirect to Prechter as if he owned the term. Rl 13:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Adding to the discussion of trivial vs. mainstream/notable, two editors had earlier disparaged a reliable source by claiming it failed to meet the “widely cited” criterion – which I think refers to the proposed science notability guideline. I mention this because the community has rejected that proposal; a strong critique from the proposal’s talk page helps explain why. Thus the language of WP:N alone governs notability in this case, specifically the general notability guideline that requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (such as the Journal of Behavioral Finance). WP:V is also on point: "the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers."--Rgfolsom 02:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it's just me, but I think it's disruptive to have someone respond to each and every comment with which they disagree -- particularly with something as, well, rude as "ignore this person's opinion." To my mind such editing appears tendentious. Calton's comment was well-supported, and was in no way "I don't like it."
By my count, Mr. Folsom, you've now commented 45 times in this discussion, including several calls to have other peoples' views "discounted." When Calton says that the arguments are overblown, that's what I think he means - that it sounds like a tendentious editor with a big COI who's willing to devote large amounts of time to this issue. (And you have to wonder if people who otherwise would have joined this discussion, on either side, have stayed away from it because they just didn't want to get involved in that type of exhausting argument.) Calton's !vote will not be discounted, nor will anyone else's. I think we've all heard your position, I think it's clear, and now I'd encourage you to please allow other editors to express theirs. --TheOtherBob 04:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More