Revision 46071355 of "Socionomics" on enwiki

'''Socionomics''' is a concept invented by Robert R. Prechter, Jr in his book ''Socionomics: The Science of History and Social Prediction'' first published in 1999, and supported in his later book ''Pioneering Studies In Socionomics'' in 2003.

According to Prechter, Socionomics is the study of the dynamics of human social behavior in the aggregate, in all contexts of decision-making under uncertainty.  Its key hypothesis is that social actions are not causal to changes in social mood, but rather, changes in social mood motivate changes in social action. Humans' unconscious impulses to [[herd#Human]] affect the emergence of social mood trends, which in turn shape the tone and character of social action. This perspective applies across all realms of social activity, including economic, financial, political and cultural.

==Examples==
Below are a few examples of the difference in causal perspective between socionomics and conventional theories:

===Standard View (social action influences social mood)===
* Recession causes businessmen to be cautious.
* Talented leaders make the population happy.
* A rising stock market makes people increasingly optimistic.
* Scandals make people outraged.
* War makes people angry.
* Happy music makes people smile.
* Nuclear bomb testing makes people nervous.

===Socionomic View (social mood influences social action)===
* Cautious businessmen cause recession.
* A happy population makes leaders appear talented.
* Increasingly optimistic people make the stock market rise.
* Outraged people seek out scandals.
* Fearful and angry people make war.
* People who want to smile choose happy music.
* Nervous people test nuclear bombs.

Socionomics challenges the rational choice model of human social behavior that underlies the standard social science model. Instead, it postulates a model of [[endogenous]] generation of social mood trends, which in turn motivate social actions, producing events that make history. 

==Definitions==
===Social mood===
Social mood is the net emotional state of people in a society. Humans' impulses to herd in a context of uncertainty or arbitrariness create endogenous patterns of social mood. Social mood fluctuates at numerous degrees of trend between positive and negative poles, each of which comprises numerous related human emotions. Social mood motivates socionomic actions.

===The socionomic hypothesis===
The socionomic hypothesis is the understanding that social mood motivates the tone and character of social events, and not the other way around.

===Socionomist=== 
A socionomist (so-she-on'-o-mist or so-see-on'-o-mist) develops and analyzes indicators of social mood in order to forecast the direction and character of social actions and social events, occasionally actual social actions and social events, and, when possible, the direction of social mood itself.

===Sociometer===
A sociometer is an indicator of the states and trends of social mood. The ideal sociometer would directly record aggregated mood changes in people's minds, but such a tool is currently unavailable. All currently available sociometers are measures of socionomic actions taken in response to trends and changes in social mood. Therefore, all available sociometers lag actual changes in social mood. Socionomists use stock market averages as the primary meter of social mood, as they are its most direct reflector.

===Socionomic actions===
Socionomic actions are actions of social aggregations that express trends and changes in social mood. Socionomic actions result from emotionally impelled decision-making in a social context of uncertainty (such as in financial markets, business, and politics) or arbitrariness (such as with regard to fads and fashions). 

==Criticism==
Much has been published based on the assumption that the Socionomic Hypothesis is true but the vast majority of this has been authored by Prechter himself and his company, Elliott Wave International.  As of early 2006, there is very little in the way of unbiased, neutrally-postured criticism in the public domain.

The major criticism that has been levelled at the Socionomic Hypothesis is that, whilst it has had some extremely compelling successes in explaining many apparent paradoxes of human social and economic behaviour and even the outbreak of disease, it lacks universal applicability.

For example, with respect to the following events dating from 2001-2003:

* the World Trade Center attacks
* the invasion of Afghanistan
* the outbreak of SARS
* the anthrax and sniper attacks in the USA
* the Petrol Protests and Foot & Mouth Disease in the UK
* the (second) invasion  of Iraq

a Socionomist would explain that these were all "bear market phenomenae" that matched the increasingly negative social mood of the time, as quantified by catastrophic stock market sell-offs.  Many other social occurrences, such as the emergence of Islamic fundamentalism and the enduring troubles of Africa, can quite simply be explained as products of negative or contracting social mood, whilst the Dotcom bubble of 1999 and 2000 is a textbook illustration of a euphoric peak in social mood.

Indeed, Rothschild's advice "buy on the sound of gunfire" is neatly subsumed, as illustrated by the close proximity of the invasion of Iraq (a product of negative social mood) to the ultimate European stock market lows in 2003 (a low reading on a sociometer).

But Socionomists struggle to explain convincingly the following:

* why the USA issued thinly-veiled military threats to Iran in 2006 as US stock indices hovered at or near multi-year highs
* why the incidence of suicide pacts in Japan has increased alongside a resurgent Nikkei
* why riots broke out in France in 2005 and 2006 as the CAC made multi-year highs
* why racist football-crowd chants and London tube bombs occurred in 2005 as the FTSE was surging

Some have speculated that it was the response to these events that revealed an expansive social mood; that is, the international community did not break rank when the USA threatened Iran in 2006, and the people of London continued to use the tube in 2005 even as the risk of bombing was made so clear, but critics would argue by return this is fitting the facts to fit the theory because the Hypothesis should explain events directly if it is correct.  Rather like with the Wave Principle itself, the analyst can explain anything away after the event, but it has only limited predictive value in real time and will often lead the analyst to become emotionally attached to the wrong conclusion.  Cynics say that a valid hypothesis should not need so many excuses or postdiction.

The most difficult problem of all for the socionomic approach is that the extremely bearish books by Mr. Prechter ('' At The Crest of The Tidal Wave'' (1995), and '' Conquer The Crash'' (2002) ), which draw upon Elliott's Wave Principle and Prechter's own melding of technical analysis with socionomics, have so far been auguries of enormous stock market rallies.

In summary a critic might say that since 1995 Prechter's framework has occasionally produced impressive forecasts of negative events and that it is not without merit, but that it is too strongly weighted on the negative.  What for a Socionomist is overfrothing positive social mood for others is simply "progress".  Socionomics and by implication the Wave Principle must therefore be flawed or incomplete or hard to practice well.

An alternative conclusion might be that the theory will gain more respect over time, once it has perhaps developed a reputation for consistent accuracy, or understood better.

As Prechter's site itself says, it's hard to remain serious in the face of folly passing itself off as 'analysis' or indeed the demagoguery Prechter publishes on his website.  His answers to questions posted on his website, to many critics, are more akin to an agony aunt's column responding to social and emotional problems of its readers who seek reassurance from an 'expert' rather than a science of 'objective analytical technique' as outlined and described in detail in his many books.

It is possible the concept will be taken one step further and Prechter may be giving insight into what Elliot's Wave principle offers in terms of explanation for not just social and emotional but also sexual problems. The start of a new science called 'Sexonomics' may help explain to people the ups and down in their relationships. 

== References ==
* Robert R. Prechter, Jr. (2002). '' The Wave Principle of Human Social Behavior and the New Science of Socionomics'' (Reissue ed.).  New Classics Library. ISBN 0-93-275054-0 (paperbound: ISBN 0-93-275049-4).
* Robert R. Prechter, Jr. (2003). ''Pioneering Studies In Socionomics''.  New Classic Library.  ISBN 0-93-275056-7.

==External links==

* [http://www.socionomics.net/ The Socionomics Institute]
* [http://www.socionomics.org/ Socionomics Foundation]

{{uncat}}