Ne and science

[Uberfuhrer]

Science itself is a Ti function.

I find astronomy, astrophysics, and oceanography fascinating, particularly because of how vast and mysterious those fields really are, but I look at them all more for purposes of creative stimulation, which sometimes works, but sometimes doesn't. I mostly use video games and movies as fuel for my creative spark. I usually respond imaginatively to visual media such as those. As for the rest of science, I find that I use it to either criticize or use to justify or advance my schemes. In general, however, I think science is just as much a religion as Christianity and Islam.

[substitute]

Ygolo - when I say 'Ne types' I mean generally types that have Ne as their primary or secondary function

As for social sciences, I find the scope is just so wide that as a subject it can only make sense approached from an interdisciplinary perspective, like social science is the hub of a wheel whose spokes are say, history, languages/linguistics, mythology, psychology, medical science, religious/spiritual studies, demographics, etc., constantly cross-referenced.

My way of doing things, of say answering or figuring out the answer to a question (any question I guess, on any subject) is to first of all take a big step back to look at the whole thing from as wide an angle as possible, and that way I identify which parts might need zooming in on, and which other parts to cross-reference them with. That way I find myself getting to the nub of things much quicker than if I'd begun by only what appeared to be 'the topic', blindly groping outwards and barking up many wrong trees in the hopes of finding something.

[bluebell]

Gah, I only had time to read the first few posts before replying (I have to log off soon). But you guys write so much and so quickly, the thread is likely to moved on from the original discussion by the time I get back.

Substitute - your OP describes my problems with science too. I love thinking about science. I tried to become a scientist at one point. I remember reading papers when I started grad school and thinking 'this is all just damn stamp collecting'. I wanted to know what the overarching concepts were. It was all just broken down into details. At one level, I understood the necessity of doing it that way, but another part was incredibly frustrated by that approach. (by the way, this was in applied physics)

Gotta run - I may write more later.

[substitute]

That's pretty much the way I feel bluebell. Particularly understanding why the detail stuff is necessary but still not being able to put your heart into it even so... for me it's not just about knowing in theory why it's necessary as a concept, to do the stamp-collecting part... I need to know exactly why this particular stamp is worth looking at and sticking in the album, so to speak?

I guess I'm still always thinking in big picture terms even if I'm working on details - I'm sorta wondering where in the 'scrap book' I need to put that stamp, in order to leave the right amount of space for the other things that might need to go there in future, always assuming that what I have here isn't the full story, that it's only a small piece of something bigger.

[GZA]

Like CC, I like science from a distance. I no longer take it in school, but I still like to read about it a bit, but only in a gernal sense. My favourite science has always been ecology and environment related sciences. Its very much a Ne stimulating thing for me... how all life comes together, how everything effects everything else, ect. Plus there is my personal emotions... I just love staring at the nature shots and it makes me sad to think of how it is being destroyed. It activiates my imagination a lot. I guess I'm a naturalist to some degree.

[The_Liquid_Laser]

I've always had a very easy time understanding science as long as I stuck to books, pencil and paper, periodic table, etc.... As soon as I start using my hands (like in a laboratory setting) things start to go wrong. I have a tendency to break things: beakers, flasks, crucibles, etc.... If I ever did "real scientific research" (i.e. in a laboratory), then I'd need an ISTJ assistant to meticulously do all the hands-on work, so I wouldn't blow us all to kingdom come.

[nightning]

This was what a professor told me about what science is in his "lecture" on study design...

Something along the lines of below...

"Science is unnatural. Science attempts to turn human into robots. The scientific method is designed to remove human bias. People are very good at pattern recognition, much better than computers. Unfortunately people will see patterns when there is none. So the scientific method is a system of approach to get around that. If you do studies that are uncontrolled, non-randomized, and not blinded. Then you're not doing an experiment. You're doing a pilot study. I know I love doing that when I was young. What will happen if you change this and that? How about adding a little bit of those? We used to call them "Friday afternoon experiments". They're not real experiments. But it's fun."

Oh yes, the scientific method is not "fun", but you need it in order to get unbiased results.

[ygolo]

Originally Posted by nightning

Oh yes, the scientific method is not "fun", but you need it in order to get unbiased results.

Exactly. It's a question of having the desire to know the answer enough to work through the tedium.

Engineering design, also has those aspects too. Except, it is a matter of wanting to see something come to fruition enough to work through the tedium.

I still have issues dealing with tedium. Sometimes I wish I could just tell someone how to do my job and consult when he/she gets confused or lost.

[substitute]

Originally Posted by ygolo

I still have issues dealing with tedium. Sometimes I wish I could just tell someone how to do my job and consult when he/she gets confused or lost.

that's pretty much how I strive to arrange things as often as possible, with a good success rate too

[Athenian200]

I usually like the linear, incremental, and precise way of describing things that science uses. I usually get frustrated with xNxP's because they assume I meant something general based on reading context I wasn't even considering, when I said what I specifically meant within what I wrote. They often fail to extend me that same courtesy, and give me a vague impression that I'm expected to accept/comprehend without difficulty or hesitation (which I don't know how to do).

Not that I don't like NP's... they're quite imaginative. I just find them confusing because they can be too broad in their scope.

So, substitute... would you say that what you're describing would be primarily a J/P difference?