Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumWhy it's so hard to convince a climate denier
Deniers are not (just) hampered by lack of information or moral failings. The lack of concern they show for the kinds of arguments put forward by environmental activists and climate scientists may be due to the possibility that there are two categories of psychological wiring in play. Here’s a useful piece of information from the Myers-Briggs web site, which bears on what Tom Murphy of “Do the Math” noticed in his recent blog.
Everyone spends some time Sensing and some time using Intuition. Don’t confuse Sensing with sensual. They aren’t related.
Take a minute to ask yourself which of the following descriptions seems more natural, effortless, and comfortable for you?
Sensing (S)
Paying attention to physical reality, what I see, hear, touch, taste, and smell. I’m concerned with what is actual, present, current, and real. I notice facts and I remember details that are important to me. I like to see the practical use of things and learn best when I see how to use what I’m learning. Experience speaks to me louder than words.
The following statements generally apply to me:
· I remember events as snapshots of what actually happened.
· I solve problems by working through facts until I understand the problem.
· I am pragmatic and look to the “bottom line.”
· I start with facts and then form a big picture.
· I trust experience first and trust words and symbols less.
· Sometimes I pay so much attention to facts, either present or past, that I miss new possibilities.
Intuition (N)
Paying the most attention to impressions or the meaning and patterns of the information I get. I would rather learn by thinking a problem through than by hands-on experience. I’m interested in new things and what might be possible, so that I think more about the future than the past. I like to work with symbols or abstract theories, even if I don’t know how I will use them. I remember events more as an impression of what it was like than as actual facts or details of what happened.
The following statements generally apply to me:
· I remember events by what I read “between the lines” about their meaning.
· I solve problems by leaping between different ideas and possibilities.
· I am interested in doing things that are new and different.
· I like to see the big picture, then to find out the facts.
· I trust impressions, symbols, and metaphors more than what I actually experienced
· Sometimes I think so much about new possibilities that I never look at how to make them a reality.
As far as I can tell, most scientists and eco-activists are Intuitive or N types. We see patterns easily, and tend to trust conclusions arrived at through abstraction, analogy, metaphors and models.
Sensing (S) types on the other hand aren't as receptive to arguments based on patterns and abstraction. that's just not how they think, and not how they see the world. We are presenting them with data they can't process, framed in language they find psychologically difficult to accept.
Unfortunately, over 70% of the human population is made up of S types. Is it any wonder we're making such slow progress, and why minds are beginning to change only now, when the consequences of climate change are becoming concrete and visible?
And BTW, Republicans tend to be S types, much more so than Democrats...
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
ladjf
(17,320 posts)Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)VATICAN CITY (AP) — Pope Francis called Thursday for a bold cultural revolution to correct what he calls the "structurally perverse" economic system of the rich exploiting the poor that is turning Earth into an "immense pile of filth."
In a sweeping manifesto aimed at spurring action in U.N. climate negotiations, domestic politics and everyday life, Francis explains the science of global warming, which he blames on an unfair, fossil fuel-based industrial model that he says harms the poor most. Citing Scripture and past popes' and bishops' appeals, he urges people of all faiths and no faith to undergo an awakening to save God's creation for future generations.
It's an indictment of big business and climate doubters alike.
"It is not enough to balance, in the medium term, the protection of nature with financial gain, or the preservation of the environment with progress," he writes. "Halfway measures simply delay the inevitable disaster. Put simply, it is a matter of redefining our notion of progress."
http://www.syracuse.com/us-news/index.ssf/2015/06/laudato_si_pope_francis_cultural_revolution_climate_economy.html
Duppers
(28,126 posts)"framed in language they find psychologically difficult to accept."
More like intellectually impossible to accept. Room temperature IQs are more than likely involved.
The2ndWheel
(7,947 posts)If you have to make the other side stupid, not just incorrect, but stupid, then there will be no discussion, and probably can't be any discussion, because at some point neither side is listening to the other.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)[font size=4]A provocative new study claims that conservative climate skeptics actually know plenty of science.[/font]
—By Chris Mooney | Thu Jun. 26, 2014 6:00 AM EDT
[font size=3]…
This is a vital question in the field of science communication, because at its core is the issue of whether we are dealing with mass public scientific illiteracy on the one hand (which presumably could be fixed by education), or with something much deeper and more intractable. What's more, this problem isn't confined to evolution. The issue of climate change may be very similar in this respect. Ask a polling question about climate change in one way, and you may cause conservatives to reassert their ideological identities, and reject the most important finding of climate science (that humans are causing global warming). But ask it in another way and, well, it may turn out that they know what the science says after all (even if they don't personally believe it).
Such is the finding of a new paper by Yale law professor and communication researcher Dan Kahan, recently profiled in depth by Ezra Klein in a much read Vox article aptly titled "How politics makes us stupid." Kahan is becoming widely known for his research showing that political ideology interferes with our most basic reasoning abilities; even our math skills, it seems, go right out the window when political passions come into play. In this new paper, though, Kahan isn't showing how dumb we are. Rather, he's doing the opposite: Showing that if you ask the questions the right way, Americans know a lot more about climate science than you might think. (Even conservatives.)
"Whether people 'believe in' climate change, like whether they 'believe in' evolution, expresses who they are," writes Kahan.
To understand Kahan's analysis, it helps to start where much of his prior research—extensively covered by Klein, myself, and others—left off. Kahan has defined a measure that he calls "ordinary science intelligence," which assesses how good people are at mathematical and scientific reasoning and at questioning their own beliefs. Using this survey tool, he is able to present evidence showing that (1) as people get better at science, they are more likely in general to affirm that global warming is mostly due to human activities; but (2) as soon as you split people up in to liberals and conservatives, that conclusion goes out the window. Actually, liberals get way better in their answers as their science ability increases, and conservatives get considerably worse:
…[/font][/font]
Duppers
(28,126 posts)"...political ideology interferes with our most basic reasoning abilities; even our math skills, it seems, go right out the window when political passions come into play."
If not lower IQs, then I would assert that they have personality disorders.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)In each of those professions, experience and what has worked in the past is more important then what is the latest greatest thing. All three professions will embrace new ideas, but only once they are proven, not just because it is a new way to think of a problem even if the new way explains the past better then what they had used in the past.
People of average or lower IQ tend to follow the advice of people they see as smarter then them, thus Lawyers, Accountants and Doctors have tremendous influence in society. They are the movers and shakers of society for that is who the lower IQ people look to for guidance.
Now, Priests (And most religious leaders) and Teachers tend to be more into new ideas and concepts. Scientists hate to admit it, but modern science came out of the theological fights of the Reformation. Both sides of that debate looked to nature to justify their side and opened up research in Science that later evolved from its religious roots (Charles Darwin was trained in theology and his job on the the trip to the Islands was chaplain, at the same time he said he was an atheist). I give the background of Darwin to show where Science came from and where it was in the days of Darwin.
Now, right wing theologian tend to be people with a very closed mind, unlike the main line Protestant and Catholic religious leaders, who tend to be more open minded. The later tend to view the bible as one source of Theology, not the only source for to restrict God to just one book is to restrict God. The right wingers what the bible to be the end all and be all of their theology thus they want the Bible to be their only book and will not listen to other sources of information. I bring this up for there is clearly a difference between Main line Protestants and Catholic Religious leaders and Right wing fundamentalists. It is a difference you see in the two groups, thus the Pope is willing to discuss Climate Change, but Right wingers say it is wrong to do so.
The same with teachers, teachers tend to be more Intuition, they want to try things that work. Now some teachers are Sensing types, they rely on things that work, but many are also intuition, they will look into new things. Thus you see a division, just like in religious leaders, but it is not as clear, but it exists.
Just a comment that this difference is NOT one of intelligence, but background and training. Certain professions need very intelligence people who are at the same time are people who do what had worked in the past and once you enter that profession you either embrace those concepts or you leave the profession.
To a good degree people need to do BOTH, they need to do what has worked in the past and at the same time look at things and see that something new is needed. I remember the story of about successful farmers. The more old sayings a farmer new, the more successful he was. It did not matter if the sayings were accurate or not, but the more he knew, the better farmer he was. The best explanation for that was the smarter farmers learned all of the old sayings and relied on them, unless they did not work then they abandoned them and tried something new. Notice the successful farmer ended up being BOTH sensory, in that the went by the old sayings, and intuitive when it was clear something new was needed.
Thus we need BOTH and any society has a need for BOTH types of people. That 70% are sensory may be good, for such people will do what has worked in the past and that is more often then not the best way to do things. On the other hand the 30% can show the 70% when change is needed and once it is clear that change is needed most of the 70% will do the switch. A good example of this was the New Deal. If you would have asked Americans in the mid 1920s about what was to become the New Deal, the majority of Americans would have rejected it as unneeded. A sizable part of the population had been proposing what would become the New Deal since 1894 (and the Presidential election of 1896) but could not convince the Majority of Americans it was needed till the Great Depression made it clear what had worked in the past will NOT work in the future and thus the New Deal was adopted. The same thing with Climate change, things will have to get bad before people will accept what has worked in the past will not work in the future. Not so bad that people are dying, but bad enough that people see something has to be done. That was the situation in 1932-1934 and I suspect a quick change over if the climate gets to bad (My money on the West Antarctic Ice sheet Collapsing, causing world wide flooding and the end of most trade for a couple of years, as the ports adjust to the increase in sea level, that will force people to accept the fact climate change is bad and must be addressed).
GreatGazoo
(3,937 posts)State of Florida is an example of this. Right now the federal government is providing climate change relief/insurance via FEMA and the primary recipients are Texas and Florida. Florida is sucking up billion of federal dollars as the Atlantic continues to rise and extreme hurricane become more intense and frequent. This is completely forseeable so likely on the advice of lawyers Florida government has banned "climate change" and "global warming" from their communications. This is being done to fuel their disaster capitalism. They want to continue to receive and spend FEMA money for as long as possible.
There is also the issue of a shrinking tax base as pricey Florida beachfront real estate becomes uninhabitable. Any good buyer would assess the future value of property and the risks. If the State did the same with their tax assessments many real estate values would go down significantly right now.
In other areas of the country insurance companies have started to sue local governments for not preparing for the flooding, etc. For example if a municipality builds storm drains and they aren't large enough to handle an easily predictable increase in extreme rain events then they can be liable for the damage caused by inadequate drains.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/05/19/climate-change-get-ready-or-get-sued/
The professional denier knows very well that climate change is real but they deny in order to make money off of disaster and suffering.
PADemD
(4,482 posts)Yes! Not all scientists recognize this difference and how to approach it. There must be some way that the deniers are made to "sense" the situation. Bombarding deniers with facts won't help. A guided world tour of the areas greatly affected by climate change by the most prominent vocal deniers might help.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)I know “N” types who smoke, and will cite the old cliché, “association is not causation.”
If there are 99 scientists saying “climate change is anthropogenic” and one of them goes onto a chat show, paired with one scientist who is saying “It’s just natural variation” people who are primed to “skepticism” will listen to the voice which supports their view.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-04/s-htu042115.php
[font size=5]Hurdles to US climate change action are in economics and politics, not divided science[/font]
[font size=4]Policymakers argue over the consensus on global warming and climate change, but science is not to blame[/font]
[font size=3]The U.S. Congress successfully hears the "supermajority" consensus on the reality and causes of climate change, according to scientists from Texas A&M University, Idaho State University, and University of Oklahoma. In a paper published in Climatic Change, the scientists suggest looking at business interests, partisan predispositions and political ideology for the hurdles to policy action.
"Different perceptions and claims among lawmakers are a major hurdle to agreeing on action to address global warming and these were thought to simply reflect scientific uncertainty," says lead author Xinsheng Liu. "However, our findings show that congressional testimonies are in fact consistent with agreement in the climate science community and that the sources of controversies must lie elsewhere."
Liu and his co-authors, Arnold Vedlitz, James Stoutenborough and Scott Robinson, even found that despite Republican-controlled congresses in the United States being more likely to feature scientists with a skeptical view, the majority of experts called as witnesses still indicate that global warming and climate change are real and caused by human activity.
They analysed 1,350 testimonies from 253 relevant congressional hearings from 1969 to 2007. Among expert witnesses who expressed a view, 86 percent say that global warming and climate change is happening and 78 percent say it is caused by human activity. Under Republican-controlled congresses, a three-quarter supermajority of scientists say that it is real and anthropogenic. Most significant of all, 95 percent of scientists giving testimonies support action to combat it.
…[/font][/font]
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Last edited Thu Jun 18, 2015, 12:16 PM - Edit history (1)
S types will be more susceptible to this trick because it leverages their innate tendency to trust what's in front of them. N types who will be more prone to look for, and find the agenda behind the ploy. IMHO.
Knowing a few smoking N-types doesn't invalidate the concept, which is statistical in nature. We're talking about tendencies here.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)[font size=5]Global warming cynics unmoved by extreme weather[/font]
[font size=3]What will it take to convince skeptics of global warming that the phenomenon is real? Surely, many scientists believe, enough droughts, floods and heat waves will begin to change minds.
…
As this study and McCright’s past research shows, political party identification plays a significant role in determining global warming beliefs. People who identify as Republican tend to doubt the existence of global warming, while Democrats generally believe in it.
The abnormally warm winter was just one in an ongoing series of severe weather events – including the 2010 Russian heat wave, Hurricane Sandy in 2012 and the 2013 typhoon in the Philippines – that many believed would help start convincing global warming cynics.
“There’s been a lot of talk among climate scientists, politicians and journalists that warmer winters like this would change people’s minds,” McCright said. “That the more people are exposed to climate change, the more they’ll be convinced. This study suggests this is not the case.”
…[/font][/font]
( http://www.democraticunderground.com/112778193 )
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)I see an overlap between deniers and Republicans (or conservatives in general), and Republicans are more often S types.
Sensing-Intuition. Sensing and intuition are the only psychological type preferences that show any consistent relationship to political ideology (in the few studies of which we are aware). In particular, clearer preferences for Sensing associate with conservative leanings whereas clearer preferences for Intuition associate with a more liberal orientation.
Consider the characteristics of Sensing and Intuition types. Sensing types routinely are characterized as practical, realistic, and concerned with the here-and-now. They trust experience and facts. On the other hand, Intuiting types are characterized as imaginative, abstract, and concerned with the future. They trust hunches and possibilities.
What do you feel I misunderstand?
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)I gave the example, “Global warming cynics unmoved by extreme weather,” where given first-hand experience, “skeptics” still remained skeptical.
i.e. “skeptics” do not necessarily trust what is in front of them.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)I'm trying to avoid the trap of absolutism that I fell into with such regularity a few years ago.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)The nice graphs of who follows a web site like “Do The Math” do not indicate who is interested in climate change. They may indicate who is interested in reading a blog which “is often playfully quantitative” when dealing with “societal issues relating to energy production, climate change, and economic growth,” (know their Myers-Briggs type, and will share it with strangers.) For the majority, that phrase, “playfully quantitative” is the worst kind of oxymoron.
That does not mean the majority are “programmed to ignore” “climate change.”
The majority of Americans believe that the climate is changing.
A similar majority believe that climate change will harm future generations.
A smaller majority (but a majority) of Americans are worried about climate change.
A minority believe that the climate is changing because of human activities.
http://environment.yale.edu/poe/v2014
There is a minority who do not believe the climate is changing at all. They are not swayed by science, nor are they swayed by the evidence of their own experience. Trying to convince them otherwise is like trying to teach a pig to sing.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Now what?
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)It may even play a significant role.
However, from the research I have read, I don’t believe it is as important a role as you present it to be.
The most hard core of “skeptics” know the science, they do not ignore it, they understand it. They choose to reject it.
You present a (supposed) reason “Why it's so hard to convince a climate denier” However, what if that is not the reason at all, and what if the real reason has already been determined, and can be addressed? What if the problem is not a lack of knowledge, but one of identity. (i.e. This person identifies as a member of a group which is “skeptical” regarding anthropogenic climate change.)
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2459057
pscot
(21,024 posts)who can't seem to imagine events outside the range of their experience. Metaphor may make them angry if it doesn't go right over their heads. And when they get locked in on the 'truth', nothing short of catastrophe can move them. That's been my experience with them. Argument gets you nowhere, beyond the fleeting satisfaction the inevitable gotcha moments.
LouisvilleDem
(303 posts)The Myers-Briggs test is enormously popular among HR department personnel that are trying to find out if a potential candidate will be a good fit for an organization and to train managers on how to deal with the different "types" of people. However, the Myers-Briggs test is not so popular among those who are arguably the most qualified to judge its validity: experts in the field of psychology. So why are psychologists not huge fans of Myers-Briggs? Apparently there are many reasons, but the one that seems to come up most often is that it categorizes people using false dichotomies.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2013/mar/19/myers-briggs-test-unscientific
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/give-and-take/201309/goodbye-mbti-the-fad-won-t-die
The reality is that people are not either sensing or intuitive, but are distributed along a bell shaped curve--with most people falling in the middle, meaning they have tendencies from both descriptions.
So why do I find the OP ironic? It is ironic because the climate debate has also falsely labelled people into one of two groups. You have people that are "believers" in AGW, and people who are "deniers" of AGW. That's it. Unfortunately, like the Myers-Briggs test, this categorization fails to capture the fact that opinions on AGW fall along a wide spectrum with significant diversity. While the vast majority (97% or more) agree that the world is warming and human activity is largely to blame, there are significant differences in opinion beyond that. First, you have the question of magnitude. You can find scientists that believe we are in for less than 1 degree of warming over the next century, and some that believe we are in for 5, 6 or even more degrees of warming. Beyond that, you also have differences of opinion as to what effect the warming will have. A little warming is actually good for the planet, but where precisely warming flips to become "dangerous" is debatable, in no small part because the term dangerous is hard to define and depends enormously on where you live.
I've mentioned these things many times in this forum, with no luck. I'm tempted to suggest that perhaps it is because this forum is dominated by 'N' types that are too busy looking at the big picture to look at what the actual facts say, but then I'd be engaging in a bit of false dichotomy myself. 
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)and eco-activists are Intuitive or N types"
First of all I take issue with the proposition that people are either 'Sensing' 'types' or, 'Intuitive' 'types'. I would say to assert that people have to fall entirely into one category or the other is patently unacceptable. MOst people are combinations of these two "types". And I put the word 'types' in quotes as categorizing people in terms of 'types' is clearly too simplistic an approach for understanding human behavior. People are far too complex to allow such a simplification to be of much use.
NOw, when you are talking about scientists, engaged in the use of the scientific method, while it is true when formulating an hypothesis some considerable imagination is involved in coming up with a postulated phenomenon or relationship and proposing a way to test the hypothesis offered. But scientists are entirely dedicated to empirical validation of proposed theories. From the scientific viewpoint, if you do not have highly disciplined or controlled methods of observing and consistent measuring of the processes or events observed - you cannot have scientific progress.
Those who are involved solely in abstractions are philosophers.
Science would never have gotten anywhere without observation of natural phenomena as the basis of development of theories explaining the observed phenomena.
Now, it is true that theoretical physicists and mathematicians have predicted things before they were ever observed (e.g. Black holes) but scientists, to a man (or woman), would insist that scientific knowledge and understanding is based on observation and measurement of events occurring in nature. When the theoretical types have predicted certain phenomena they were offering interesting hypotheses or extrapolations of known relationships - but until these hypotheses were confirmed with observations of real events, they remained interesting hypotheses only. They cannot become theories until observations of the real events confirms the hypotheses. And beyond that the theories do not become scientific facts until they are tested and confirmed a number of times by other researchers.
Also of course, one should not throw scientists in with "eco-activists", whatever the term 'eco-activists' includes. Most writers on scientific topics are well versed in the importance of the careful gathering data to support or test a hypothesis, before declaring a hypothesis a theory and only after much testing by other researchers can a theory be declared confirmed and then elevated to scientific fact or natural law. But then, there are many people writing articles on technical or scientific matters but there is no guarantee that any one of them is actually interested in using science to confirm their particular beliefs or theories. There are shills and well meaning environmental 'activists' who make breath-taking assertions without the benefit of solid empirical evidence - or even in the face of evidence which contradicts their assertions.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)We're just trading opinions on the Internet after all.
How much do you know about MBTI?
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)I do know that science is based on observation of real world events and designing experiments to test hypotheses with real world events. Putting scientists in a category of people who " tend to trust conclusions arrived at through abstraction, analogy, metaphors and models" ignores the essential part of understanding the natural world which involves observing and measuring events in it. Without careful observation and measurement you can't have scientific progress.
I would say the following statements from our OP, nicely describe what scientists do when reaching for a better understanding of the natural world:
"I solve problems by working through facts until I understand the problem.
· I start with facts and then form a big picture.
· I trust experience first and trust words and symbols less."
naturally, this is not the entirety of what scientists do. There is the effort made to arrive at general laws, which starts with formulating an hypothosis, followed by testing the hypothesis. For complex systems models will be proposed as an hypothesis. If observed events do not confirm the hypothesis or model, then the hypothesis or model must be modified to better describe what actually happens and can be observed and measured.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)My father was a Harvard-educated biochemist and my mother was a physicist. I've had many opportunities to watch the scientific process at work throughout my life. The research scientists I've known tend to start with an abstract model (hypothesis) and generate observations to test it. The process of establishing a hypothesis is far more intuitive than most people (who are generally exposed more to engineers than scientists) realize. Famous tales of this process include Kekulé's benzene ring dream and Crick's LSD vision of the structure of DNA. Most of Einstein's work qualifies as a product of deep intuition, as would the work of great astronomers or cosmologists such as Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler.
A scientific breakthrough may begin from an observation (the most exciting phrase in science being "Gee, that's odd..."
but the observation must always be placed within a model of reality in order to become testable, as required by Popperian falsifiability.
Many modern scientists may shy away from the label, but much of science is dependent on what can only be called a well-developed sense of intuition.
Here's a paper that addresses the topic: http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/THOC/Readings/Intuition-1997.pdf
LouisvilleDem
(303 posts)I agree that you need to have a great deal of intuition to come up with a hypothesis. However, that is merely the first step in the scientific process. We will never know how many thousands of intuitive people came up with brilliant hypothesis to explain some phenomena, but then lacked the "sensing" personality needed to collect and analyze a comprehensive set of facts needed to prove their hypothesis correct to the scientific community at large. Perhaps that is why there are so few really revolutionary ideas in science that actually come from one person. There is no doubt that Crick was an incredibly intuitive person, but would he have ever been known as the co-discoverer of DNA if not for the hard grunt work of collecting empirical facts performed by Rosalind Franklin? According to Crick himself, the answer is no.
on edit:
From a letter Crick wrote in 1961:
However, the data which really helped us to obtain the structure was mainly obtained by Rosalind Franklin, who died a few years ago.
http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/retrieve/ResourceMetadata/SCBBFW
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)be talking about computers, not humans. The conduct of science is a creative process - formulating hypotheses - as well as observational.
... hypothesis building is the proposing of an explanation for observed events. Without the observed events there would be no reason for a hypothesis, or explanation. But without verification of hypotheses with verifiable observations of events - to test the hypothesis we would never develop theories and theories would never become laws.
my cmt 20:
Scientists have to have some imagination or intuitions, but if that was ALL they worked from they'd be forever starting knowledge anew, from 'scratch'. An 'abstract' model you refer to has to be made up of constituent things. Those are observed phenomena some called objects, others called events or processes. Every scientists except the first few had learned a previously established set of these from those observers and theoreticians who preceded them. As society developed this learning more and more took place in institutions of learning, such as universities (e.g. Harvard). The accepted knowledge of the day was what made up these universities curricula.
Here is a definition of the scientific method found in Wikipedia:
(all emphases my own)
The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[2] [font size="+1"]To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[/font][3] The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as[font size="+1"] "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[/font][4]
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)My intuition tells me that more scientists are N types than S types, that's all.
And I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that more engineers are S types than are N types.
