• 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

The Ü™

Permabanned
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
11,910
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
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

New member
Joined
May 27, 2007
Messages
4,601
MBTI Type
ENTP
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

New member
Joined
Apr 30, 2007
Messages
1,485
MBTI Type
INTP
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

New member
Joined
May 27, 2007
Messages
4,601
MBTI Type
ENTP
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? :laugh:

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

Resident Snot-Nose
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
1,771
MBTI Type
infp
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

Glowy Goopy Goodness
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
3,376
MBTI Type
ENTP
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. :9436: :)
 

nightning

ish red no longer *sad*
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,741
MBTI Type
INfj
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. :dry:
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,988
Oh yes, the scientific method is not "fun", but you need it in order to get unbiased results. :dry:

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

New member
Joined
May 27, 2007
Messages
4,601
MBTI Type
ENTP
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 :laugh:
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
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?
 

nightning

ish red no longer *sad*
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,741
MBTI Type
INfj
I saw on TV last night on knowledge network... the show "100 greatest scientific discoveries". They have Bill Nye (the science guy) as the show host/narrator and he went through all the breakthrough discoveries in chemistry. I got to watch half an hour or so of the beginning before the channel was switched on me. :sad:

Anyways, I noticed the following pattern...
The breakthroughs in science... Much is discovered due to serendipity. Discovery of oxygen, synethesis of uric acid from inorganic compounds, the existence of electrons... All originated from the observation that something weird happened. Keen observation or insight followed by systematic testing and refinement.

I guess you can say Ne (and to some extent Ni. Discovering the structure of benzene... a dream... of a snake swallowing its tail... a ring. The benzene ring.) helps in making a breakthrough... but the follow through is all sweat and blood.
 

Maverick

New member
Joined
Apr 29, 2007
Messages
880
MBTI Type
ENTJ
I have always had the same frustration with science. I'm interested in the overall model and theory. I couldn't care less about the details. I also find it frustrating not seeing the direct application of things.

Considering the use of Ne, it depends on the level you're at. As an undergrad, it's just too much of a slow, painstaking and detailed process IMO. You hyper-specialize and work on very precise questions. You change a couple of variables at a time. Once you finally get results, you have the tedious job of writing something up that will be accepted by a journal. Then it's nitpicking and you constantly fight with reviewers over details. Boring as hell if you ask me. It is very Si, Ti and Fe. The Ne part is relatively minor compared to the rest of the job.

I think that professors get to use Ne more.They can focus on the conceptual part of things and work on several projects, supervising several grad students.
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,988
For whatever reason, I tend to have some book I read a long time ago on my mind in many discussions.

I usually hold on to my book recommendations. But often, the book just seems too relevant.

The Pleasure of Finding Things Out: The Best Short Works of Richard P. Feynman

Richard Feynman was as clear an ENTP as I've read. Reading him would have you believe that science is almost all Ne (applied in a rather interesting manner).

Perhaps because he was a theorist, things are different. But he did win a Nobel Prize in Physics so I think his credentials as a scientist are sound.
 

Sinister Scribe

New member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
62
MBTI Type
INTx
Enneagram
5
I'm a fairly strong INT and a student of chemistry and physics (right now, at an undergrad level). I've found that my Te has kept me going and able to take the intuitions I have about certain processes and come up with logical conclusions. I suppose it also doesn't hurt that I have a fairly strong Ni function (and my Ne isn't that weak, either) to augment the thinking.

One of my professors made a comment in class once about science that seems to stick in my head. He said that part of science was coming up with theories and part of it was finding proof to either support or negate said theories. The intuitiveness of the NT mind would be responsible for coming up with those theories, while the thinking function (especially if NTJs) would be eager to either prove or disprove the idea.

I'm pretty sure this particular professor is probably an ENTP just based on what he says in class and how his lectures are conducted... I love his teaching style (he actually reminds me of my INTJ high school science teacher in several ways), but outside the classroom our personalities tend to grind at each other the wrong way.
 
Top