Quote Originally Posted by Pedro-The-Lion
You said people object to you saying that evolution created consciousness I think the reason they might disagree with you is that the word "created" implies intent with evolution you need intent not. If you make the collective unconscious the possessor of intent you've just changed your god not abandoned him.
I can't argue, most of my posts were bullshit to get people stirred up to really wonder about the answer to the question. That question must be answered for socionic's acceptance. It may be explored in russian texts, I don't know. Any science must be tied to something accepted. Otherwise we're neurotics building huge castles in the sky. Even if we are not, that's how we look.

That's part of the reason I want to create a standard nomenclature in English for certain things...like each type, each block of the model a, etc, which is currently different in different places. One of the big things I want to change is the nomenclature of energy vs information exchange. It's a very valid thing, it means energy as in more conscious - unconscious information exchange than conscious-conscious information exchange(where the blocks go basically). But I know someone who saw the word "energy" on my site and went running, and to tell you the truth, I would to. Makes it sound like astrology or some other bullshit. They don't sit around to understand the actual logic or model of psyche because they're avoiding that one word. "energy" is a very "hippie", metaphysical, astrological, holistic, bullshit association in the west. I want to avoid that word.

Back on point, I want to see if there is already research in the origin of socionics, it's cause for being. Otherwise, we can prove nothing can we?