Incessantly Needing To Ponder

I find most people of college-age have heard of the Meyers-Briggs test at some point in their life. (If not, JFGI.) I became fascinated with this bit of statistic-ry foolishness back when I was a first year university student. To the surprise of no one who knows me, I tested then, and still test now, as an INTP.

Introverted iNtutive Thinking Percieving.

Basically, this means that I really suck at maintaining social relationships (because I don't do well with emotion, but also because I simply don't care much of the time and can't really be bothered). I am analytical to a fault about almost everything in my life. I have an idiosyncratic sense of humor. Once decided, I fall swiftly and irrevocably in love - and expect my partner to put up with various oddities to boot. Competency takes precedence to repeated experience in a subject. And stupidity in others is not only sneered at, but openly mocked and prodded with what I'm sure most people would see as a measure of arrogance abnormal to decent society.

Whee! Okay, so I have exaggerated faults and deficiencies. We're all unique and wonderful snowflakes, blah blah. INTP profiles really do describe me quite well, however, and I often find myself taking shelter in their conclusions when I feel guilty and/or ashamed of something I've done in relation to other people. I only wanted to bring this up now, because I'm sure it's something I'm going to reference a lot in an attempt to explain why I do the things I do. (And this is a habit I indulge often due to my analytical nature.)

This probably helps explain why I have a need to constantly jot down my random thoughts. And my smirks and cocked eyebrows when people take pictures of me.

Really I don't think of myself as arrogant at all. Elitist to a fault, sure. Most of that is the product of my excellent childhood and education from my parents. I am an incredibly self-confident individual, and make no apologies for it. Most of the time I find it difficult to understand why other people aren't on the same level when it comes to assurance in themselves. When I get taken down a peg though, it sure smarts. Heh.

This is just a post I've been meaning to put up for awhile. There will be more notes about it later.

The Purpose of Science is to Inform.

This will be an interesting follow-up to my last post. Despite my whining and groaning about grad school and all of that, I do actually care somewhat about the subject matter I am studying. Out of all of the genres of academia I could have chosen, I picked biology -- not only as something I feel deeply about, but also because I could (can? I'm not sure anymore) picture it as the dominant force in my working life.

Quick Preface: I did not take any real classes last semester. At the time, it was probably a good decision. I'm not sure I would've benefited from anything in the course listings last fall. However, this semester I decided I need even just a tiny bit of structure and signed up for a once-a-week seminar in issues facing forest ecology. We're coming up on our third week of real class discussions, and I have been struck by some of the things we keep circling back on. These are issues facing all scientists... and laymen. My class is rather small, 2-3 each of seniors, graduate students, and PhD students (as well as our professor), and whenever we talk about land management and the ethics involved, it is quite apparent that none of us really knows how to handle things. Specifically.

The title of this blog is something my professor said. I mostly agree with him. When a scientist lays out the facts colored by his/her opinion, how is the layman supposed to interpret? The primary purpose of science should be to find the facts such as they are and report them. If opinion and personal ethics get involved, results tend to be clouded. Objectivity is key. As Richard Feynman said, "...the idea is to try and give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgement in one particular direction or another."

In this vein, I am particularly interested in what the non-scientist thinks of nature and how we as humans should manage it. Science can point us only so far. What we are actually willing to commit to in terms of politics and management is up to society and society's values.

Thoughts or ideas? I would really like to know what laymen and other scientists think. I've gotten a few opinions so far and I think I know a few issues that should be addressed (namely the differences between conservation and preservation, why there's been a focus on charismatic megafauna, why things like wildfires in CA happen...). I'll do individual posts for each subject I can think of to discuss and clarify.