For each point that can be brought up in the subjective world, it is always the progression towards objective that I (we) strive for. Illusion and bad data is the enemy, meant to be overcome, not an excuse to avoid using a particular method.
If anything, the intuitive approach is less rigid with illusion and bad data - granted, Ss can take it at face value, but theorists can be heavily misled into believing their own theories when supported by even the weakest (anecdotal, etc) data or the flimsiest of illusions (human biases come to mind here for some reason).
The downside to the more rigid thinkers is that they can become rigid with bad data and illusions and not let go of them, whereas the theorists tend to... retheorize. On the balance, the openness part is probably more important right now, due to the acceleration of technology.
People do have the ability to speculate wildly, and hold on to those speculations for various reason--often due to religion. Rigidity in holding on to a theory can come for various reasons. I think a lack of ego, and the ability admit being wrong (whatever one's type) go a long way to seeing the truth for what it is.
You may have expected this, but I'm going to pick a nit regarding what type of evidence is flimsy. Anecdotal evidence is not necessarily more weak that statistical data. It depends on the circumstance.
Data, is in itself an abstract description of some the results of some experiments (and those experiments can be anecdotes of the experimenter). So "data" is at least one level removed from reality itself.
Part of my job is to produce and check the validity of data being published. I have been bitten more than once for simply taking the data at face value. I think it is quite relevant that many scientists and engineers keep good log-books in addition to the data they collect. Something could seem off when collecting the data. There could be "data" that is relevant but not part of the initial experimental design. There is other information that may not be part of the official "data" but part of the "anecdotal evidence" of the experimenter (or subject, in the case of psychological experiments).
Statistics are, in turn, an abstraction of the data set. More information is lost in this abstraction step. Statistics are nothing more than a structured summary of anecdotal evidence.
Hopefully, lots and lots of "anecdotal"(experimental/observational) evidence in controlled conditions are used in the creation of statistical "data." But there is nothing keeping someone from taking a few anecdotes, making measures on them, and quoting those measures instead of describing the direct experience that data summarizes. In this case, I give the anecdotes more clout.
Another key context to keep in mind is in forensics. Finding DNA that is a 1 in 10^8 match to someone on a murder weapon is not necessarily stronger evidence than an eye-witness (anecdotal) account to the contrary. The eye-witness could be lying, but the DNA could be there for different reasons than being used in the murder.
The only difference here would be that I say "if I can't use it, it doesn't work". A very subjective thing - I have no comment on anything that I do not use/know about. That's why I say I don't have patience for just theory. I need to use it to care.
Things need to be used to be tested. But not necessarily tested to be used. There are unvalidated theories and designs that get extensive use. But no tested theories or designs that haven't been used (at least by the testers). In short, testing is the most stressful type of use (it has to be, by definition).
Usefulness is, again, subjective.
Still, it seems we have a fair amount of agreement.
However, it does bother me when something happens to them and automatically cope by saying "what do you think about..." in a general way. Don't do that! Just tell me what happened so I can understand *you*. I don't want to talk about something for 15 minutes only to realise that it had happened to you!
It'll help you too. A solution made *for* you will be better than understanding the big picture, of which you could be an exception (one of many!).
I would guess the majority of the irritation I feel comes from this scenario. I can talk theory, big picture, but I'd really talk about the matter at hand. If that needs to be theory, I'll manage... but when it doesn't and it feels forced? Grrr...
But if you do that enough, I do think I might think that you don't deal with your own issues at a practical level. Maybe not fair, I agree, but the tendency would be there. Course, I think this about a lot of people and I don't seem to have a S/N divide. More like a Ti divide. And I'm looking at you too, TJs.
When it comes to personal issues, my main reason for not wanting to be specific is to protect myself. I discuss generalities as a form of "dignified delay" by staying in the "Computer" Satir mode. I would like to go into a more straight-forward leveling mode when I fee safe, but it does not always feel safe.
It is a tip I picked up on sources about better communication.
Here is a website with similar information.
The Satir Mode Loops:
Blaming in response to Blaming gets you a fight.
Placating in response to Placating gets you an undignified delay.
Computing in response to Computing gets you a dignified delay.
Leveling in response to Leveling is an exchange of the simple truth; it's always the best choice when it's safe and when it's appropriate.
Distracting in response to Distracting is panic feeding panic; it's always a mistake.
Rule One:
If you don't know what to do, go to Computer Mode and stay there until you have a good reason to change.
Rule Two:
If it would be desirable for the Satir Mode coming at you to escalate -- if that's what you want to have happen -- match that mode.
Perhaps I just have trust issues in general. But I rarely feel safe expressing my emotions or view-points directly because they seem to be rather different from the people I'm with. Staying in "computer" mode initially has yielded more favorable communication.
I think all the people who felt that way always came to me and said. "Dude, he wanted 10 pages, I wrote only four. How many pages did you write?" And I was like, "Uh, 20." And they said, "TWENTY?!?!?! WTF?!?!?! How the hell did you write TWENTY pages?!?!?!" I was like, "uhhhh, wellllll...."
I have always found it hard to meet page limits on reports because I write too much. I spend a third of the time writing, and two-thirds of the time editing. It is harder for me to cut than to add.
Some teachers complained when I turned in 20-pages for projects and homework sets with calculations, simulations, and data that (while possibly interesting) are not needed for grading. This may be why many professors in grad. school gave page-limits instead of page-minimums on project reports. The limits simply made their lives easier.
