• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

[Ne] Ne and science

substitute

New member
Joined
May 27, 2007
Messages
4,601
MBTI Type
ENTP
I'm not entirely sure what I'm asking here, but it's recently occurred to me that xNTP being a sorta thing that inclines one towards science is perhaps culturally dependent.

To me, Ne feels like a 'construct and unify' function... it feels like my natural inclination is to see unity in things, to see how things are connected... whilst the empirical scientific approach in Western culture feels like the total opposite to this... it seems to me much more Si-ish. All about breaking things down into categories, dividing and sub-dividing and classifying, distinguishing and just really, as I say, the opposite of the unity-perceiving inclinations of Ne.

Whenever I've looked at the sciences, I've felt like I was presented with a deconstructed mess that had been made by people before me, who had come along to a table on which was a fine jigsaw puzzle all put together beautifully, and they've just taken it to pieces and heaped the thousands of pieces in various lumps and piles all over the table, with little flags stuck in each pile saying SKY, GRASS, LEAVES, FUR, WATER, etc... and as fast as I'm trying to figure out what the whole picture is supposed to be and put it back together, "proper scientists" are taking it apart again, breaking the piles down further into GREEN LEAVES, BROWN LEAVES... I stand at the table with all these scientists patting themselves on the back for having created yet another category, getting excited and thinking they're understanding reality more the more they break it down, and I look at these piles and exasperatedly ask "Why??? Whatever did you do THAT for??? How is anyone supposed to know what the picture looks like now???"

It just seems to me that modern scientific method is tailor made to drive the Ne dominant person insane with frustration. It occurs to me that the universalist, bigger picture approach to understanding reality that one encounters in some Eastern philosophies is something more in line with the Ne temperament.

Any thoughts, anyone? :unsure:
 

SillySapienne

`~~Philosoflying~~`
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
9,801
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
I haven't even read your post, was just attracted by the title and the fact I have a presentation for my plant ecology class in an hour and a half.

While reading this terribly dry article on the effects of competition on trichome dimorphism, I suddenly realize that science is *not* for me!!!

I love science, from a distance....grrrrr time to switch my major, yet again!!!
 

SillySapienne

`~~Philosoflying~~`
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
9,801
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
Ahhhh

You are some type of godsend, or devil incarnate.

Must reread your post *after* this presentation.


I'm going insane, with yes, frustration!!!!!!!!


These ecologists bug the Ne crap out of me!!!!!!

We have yet the capacity to quantify what they are trying so hard to concretely understand!
 

substitute

New member
Joined
May 27, 2007
Messages
4,601
MBTI Type
ENTP
Yeah sorry, I just put it in the NT rationale though of course any Ne type is included in my thoughts... maybe it should be in the MBTI section! :doh:

Some of the really high level physics stuff can be good, when you go into theory again and nothing can really be proven as such and it becomes philosophy again rather than that dull divide-and-categorize approach of most science. But i'd have to take my hat off to any Ne type that manages to make it that far through the plodding stages to actually get to the interesting part.
 

Zergling

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,377
MBTI Type
ExTJ
Some of the really high level physics stuff can be good, when you go into theory again and nothing can really be proven as such and it becomes philosophy again rather than that dull divide-and-categorize approach of most science. But i'd have to take my hat off to any Ne type that manages to make it that far through the plodding stages to actually get to the interesting part.

I think a lot of sciences show the "divide and categorize" face more than the "put things together" phase because a lot of different "small pieces" are needed to be able to put them together and actually get useful results. The sciences that seem to have the big overarching theories at the moment (physics mostly, some chemistry fits this as well), have relatively simple principles, and tend not to have the large amount of interactions that a lot of other sciences do.

(Compare, say, the electricity and magnetism laws, with their simple relationships and small amount of things to keep track of, to the workings of a cell, with huge amounts of types of molecules, interactions between those molecules, stuff flowing in and out, etc. Or compare to weather/climate, which again has a huge amount of interactions going on.)

There are areas (such as turbulence, or the structures of liquids.), where there seem to be plenty of opportunities for people who want to work out an underlying pattern for understanding what is going on.
 

Jae Rae

Free-Rangin' Librarian
Joined
Nov 19, 2007
Messages
979
MBTI Type
INFJ
Last year at Back to School night, my son's Econ. teacher told us the subject was quite difficult because it involved many seemingly unrelated concepts that only came together at the end to form a unified system. "Like Physics."

Jae Rae
 

INTJMom

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2007
Messages
5,413
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
I'm not entirely sure what I'm asking here, but it's recently occurred to me that xNTP being a sorta thing that inclines one towards science is perhaps culturally dependent.

To me, Ne feels like a 'construct and unify' function... it feels like my natural inclination is to see unity in things, to see how things are connected... whilst the empirical scientific approach in Western culture feels like the total opposite to this... it seems to me much more Si-ish. All about breaking things down into categories, dividing and sub-dividing and classifying, distinguishing and just really, as I say, the opposite of the unity-perceiving inclinations of Ne.

Whenever I've looked at the sciences, I've felt like I was presented with a deconstructed mess that had been made by people before me, who had come along to a table on which was a fine jigsaw puzzle all put together beautifully, and they've just taken it to pieces and heaped the thousands of pieces in various lumps and piles all over the table, with little flags stuck in each pile saying SKY, GRASS, LEAVES, FUR, WATER, etc... and as fast as I'm trying to figure out what the whole picture is supposed to be and put it back together, "proper scientists" are taking it apart again, breaking the piles down further into GREEN LEAVES, BROWN LEAVES... I stand at the table with all these scientists patting themselves on the back for having created yet another category, getting excited and thinking they're understanding reality more the more they break it down, and I look at these piles and exasperatedly ask "Why??? Whatever did you do THAT for??? How is anyone supposed to know what the picture looks like now???"

It just seems to me that modern scientific method is tailor made to drive the Ne dominant person insane with frustration. It occurs to me that the universalist, bigger picture approach to understanding reality that one encounters in some Eastern philosophies is something more in line with the Ne temperament.

Any thoughts, anyone? :unsure:
I don't think it quite has that effect on J types, at least not on me.
I love to classify everything.

I have always loved science.
I understand the "scientific method" of conducting experiments and I use it from time to time.

I use the phrase "got it down to a science" frequently in my life, as I prefer to develop a "best way" of doing things, and then do it that way regularly, if I can.

I always have to find the fastest most efficient way of doing everything I do.

In some profiles, the INTJ is called "the scientist".
I relate to that.
 

Randomnity

insert random title here
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
9,485
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I don't think it quite has that effect on J types, at least not on me.
I love to classify everything.

I have always loved science.
I understand the "scientific method" of conducting experiments and I use it from time to time.

I use the phrase "got it down to a science" frequently in my life, as I prefer to develop a "best way" of doing things, and then do it that way regularly, if I can.

I always have to find the fastest most efficient way of doing everything I do.

In some profiles, the INTJ is called "the scientist".
I relate to that.
I can't speak for Ne types, but I relate very much to all of this. I pretty much live by the scientific method, too.

A lot of my science profs and scientist ex-coworkers seem like either ENTPs or ISTPs, but especially ENTPs. I'm not sure why. Those just seem to be overrepresented in the scientists I've known, for some reason. Ne/Se + Ti combo seems to point in that direction a lot, I guess. I don't see that many ESTPs or INTPs though, oddly.

Or maybe ENTPs/ISTPs are just easiest for me to identify, or maybe I'm mistyping them. Who knows really. :D

edit: on the other hand, some of my most brilliant friends and classmates are clearly INTJs, too. So I'm sure they're fairly well represented, too.
 

nemo

Active member
Joined
Jan 21, 2008
Messages
445
Enneagram
<3
I *love* science but I really don't like *doing* science, if that makes any sense.

Theories, explanations, answers to why? questions that just turn up more questions -- all of this I absolutely adore.

But I hate detail work, I hate painstakingly setting up equipment in a pre-designed lab just to flip a switch and stare at it for 3+ hours to make sure nothing goes wrong, and some extremely obscure topics are just hard to get excited over.

Upper division labs get fun, though; basically they just give you the problem you need to figure out, the keys to the lab, and tell you not to kill yourself but to use whatever you need to get the job done and design your own experiment. That allows for some freedom and creativity.

That creative element -- I sort of need that.

I think if I could design my own major it'd be some weird physics/upper-level experimental science/engineering/mathematics Nikola Tesla insanity-inspired awesomeness. I'd probably kill myself though, but it'd be cool while it lasted.

Edit: In general, people are right about sticking with it: it gets good at upper levels. I think ENTPs are well-suited for most sciences if they can get through the grunt work on the early levels.

Edit x2: To answer substitute's question, it's not so much the deconstructionism per se that I don't like, as much as it's the side-effect of having to delve into so many details as well as the way it's presented in undergraduate education in general. Ironically, though, I'm a mathematics/physics major.
 

Butterfly

New member
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
201
MBTI Type
ENFP
I love science. I love to know how things work, be it bigger picture or small. Though I wouldnt imagine myself working all my life in such a field, it is fascinating however. :)

It all points to the spiritual side of things that makes one say YES THERE IS A CREATOR!!!
How this ONE PERFECT Creator, made everything in perfection, with such perfect and intelligent design. He did not create things in vain, but for us to reflect and ponder on His Might, Power and Wisdom.
So "Substitute" dear, your reflection here is not lost or vain. :)
 

substitute

New member
Joined
May 27, 2007
Messages
4,601
MBTI Type
ENTP
I guess it depends on how you approach it too... I know for example an ENTP who works as an inventor of sorts for a construction materials company, not sure what to call it but basically he comes up with better mixtures and stuff for things like cement and other building materials. He says he hated science at school but passionately loved studying in his spare time - his way - and that doing it his way he figured out way more and was way ahead of how things were at school and college.

I find a similar thing with languages - lots of people tell me they don't like studying languages or find it difficult because of all the grammatical details and stuff - I completely relate to that but here I am, a polyglot and linguist by trade. But I never studied languages in colleges and stuff, and if I had only had that as my choice I'd have hated them and never taken to them.

It's from taking my own approach to it, a naturalistic approach that has little to do with books and no need for obscure grammatical terms and details (though I know these too, now). I found that I achieved more by doing it the Ne way: starting with the big picture and exploring that, zipping around from part to part of it as the fancy took me, and then gradually working down to the more detailed stuff. I could never do that detailed stuff, never would be able to stick with it, without first knowing the point of it, where it fits into the bigger picture.
 

substitute

New member
Joined
May 27, 2007
Messages
4,601
MBTI Type
ENTP
Oh, I also suppose it might be that there are two separate issues here and it's not just whether or not you find science (or 'learning how things work') interesting, cos pretty much anyone with an ounce of intellectual curiosity would enjoy that to at least some extent.

It's more a question of whether other Ne types find studying science in the formal, academic kind of way particularly gratifying, or whether they find, like me, that doing it that way actually feels like the method is getting in the way of or stifling the curiosity, rather than satisfying it.
 

nemo

Active member
Joined
Jan 21, 2008
Messages
445
Enneagram
<3
It's from taking my own approach to it, a naturalistic approach that has little to do with books and no need for obscure grammatical terms and details (though I know these too, now). I found that I achieved more by doing it the Ne way: starting with the big picture and exploring that, zipping around from part to part of it as the fancy took me, and then gradually working down to the more detailed stuff. I could never do that detailed stuff, never would be able to stick with it, without first knowing the point of it, where it fits into the bigger picture.

Exactly!!

I learn best and keep the most inspired when I have the freedom to design, invent, discover, experiment, experience, and figure stuff out on my own.

Details come later -- they never come at the beginning.

This does clash with conventional pedagogy a lot, so I totally relate.
 

JustDave

New member
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
992
MBTI Type
xNTP
True. I love computer science but find my school work to be unimaginative, very limiting and therefore booooring. However, I love my job as my boss will give me a goal (i.e.: figure out how to aggregate the log files) and then allow me to use whatever logistics and tactics I think are necessary.
 

Ghost of the dead horse

filling some space
Joined
Sep 7, 2007
Messages
3,553
MBTI Type
ENTJ
I guess the learning phase of a science uses Si and Ti extensively, as in memorizing, understanding and analyzing the science in question. Ti works better on internally consistent and logical systems, and Si for irrational and random pieces of data. All sciences are slightly different combinations of the two. Psychology probably benefits from high Fi, Fe, and political science from Fe.

When the science and it's methods have been learned, I guess Ne might come handy in making the innovations, although the strict standards of scientific conduct must still be maintained (Ti and Si, for example). Ne seems to give the best heuristic to avoid dead ends with minimal effort and to be productive in a complex area of interest. Still, I think Ne provides the worst side-tracking from the studies in the learning phase, making it less likely for an Ne to earn a diploma :rolleyes: Ni I think comes handy in maintaining the interest long enough to finish the studies.

Te I think is very useful for both studying and practicing a science.

So I think it depends on those functions whether it's easy for person to earn the diploma and hard to make scientific discoveries after graduation, or vice versa.

Most types would find both tasks difficult.
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,988
I like some sciences (I have secondary Ne, so hopefully I can give an Ne perspective also).

For me, I usually could see when the "divide-and-analyze" phase was happening, that it was for the purpose of reconstructing it with a deeper understanding.

I loved taking things apart and putting things back together (cameras, phones, locks, toys, whatever). Sometimes it got me in trouble when people realized that I actually took something of theirs appart (which was surprizingly infrequent).

As an adult, I usually ask permission before I take things apart (although I still, hack and disassmble code, if I believe I am not breaking the law).

So when analysis was being done, I thought of it the same way. To me all science can be (intellectually speaking, not practically) be derived from mechanics (quantum mechanics). Usually, we don't really need to bring in the quantum aspects. We simply work off of conservation of mass-energy (mass-energy flow for open systems), momemtum change equalling the sum of external forces, the change in entropy being proportional to to the change in heat, entropy being proportional to the log of the number of micro-states for a macro-state, etc.....

There are all incredibly overarching things that "put together" things that at first seem to have nothing in common. Why for instance would you believe that the same sort of rules govern the movement of planets, as those that govern molecules in a gas?

We have to unlink, the basic peices from where the happen to be to get an idea of all the places they could be. That is why we "analyse" and take apart. So that we can put back together in brand new more useful ways.

I was breathing a big sigh of relief when we finally got to Shrodinger's schrodinger's equation in modern physics class, because I was going nuts with the lack of coherence of the phenomenon were studying. That class, held off the "putting back together" longer to give us a taste of what the scientists at the time was going through.

I find this coherence fairly absent in the social sciences, where things like "traits" or "factors" or "indeces" have little (if anything) to do with the original people/things that was bing studies. Maybe, I just have poor vission in this area.
 

JustDave

New member
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
992
MBTI Type
xNTP
Ti is essential when trying to discover the truth as it is Ti one would use to distill a subject to its essence.
 
Top