by Judith Curry
…on average, climate change researchers will prefer to reach a decision or come to closure and ‘move on’ to the next step more quickly than the general population.
Personality type differences between Ph.D. climate researchers and the general public: implications for effective communication
C. Susan Weiler, Jason K. Keller, Christina Olex
Abstract. Effectively communicating the complexity of climate change to the public is an important goal for the climate change research community, particularly for those of us who receive public funds. The challenge of communicating the science of climate change will be reduced if climate change researchers consider the links between personality types, communication tendencies and learning preferences. Jungian personality type is one of many factors related to an individual’s preferred style of taking in and processing information, i.e., preferred communication style. In this paper, we demonstrate that the Jungian personality type profile of interdisciplinary, early career climate researchers is significantly different from that of the general population in the United States. In particular, Ph.D. climate researchers tend towards Intuition and focus on theories and the “big picture”, while the U.S. general population tends towards Sensing and focuses on concrete examples and experience. There are other differences as well in the way the general public as a group prefers to take in information, make decisions, and deal with the outer world, compared with the average interdisciplinary climate scientist. These differences have important implications for communication between these two groups. We suggest that climate researchers will be more effective in conveying their messages if they are aware of their own personality type and potential differences in preferred learning and communication styles between themselves and the general public (and other specific audiences), and use this knowledge to more effectively target their audience.
Published by Climatic Change, full text is [here].
The study uses the Myers-Briggs Type Indicatory personality inventory.
More than 2 million people in the U.S. alone take the Myers-Brigg Type Indicator (MBTI®) personality test each year, and it has been translated into more than 30 languages. The basic personality types are determined from a combination of the following four personality traits:
Favorite world: Do you prefer to focus on the outer world or on your own inner world? This is called Extraversion (E) or Introversion (I).
Information: Do you prefer to focus on the basic information you take in or do you prefer to interpret and add meaning? This is called Sensing (S) or Intuition (N).
Decisions: When making decisions, do you prefer to first look at logic and consistency or first look at the people and special circumstances? This is called Thinking (T) or Feeling (F).
Structure: In dealing with the outside world, do you prefer to get things decided or do you prefer to stay open to new information and options? This is called Judging (J) or Perceiving (P).
Excerpts from the Discussion:
The MBTI® Type Tables for Occupations provide data on the frequency of types in a variety of occupations (Schaubhut and Thompson 2008). For example, Schaubhut and Thompson (2008) identify ENFP as the most frequent personality type for college or university faculty members (12%). While most of the participants in the climate change symposia were still in post-doctoral positions, the majority intended to pursue academic careers. Interestingly, in contrast to the data reported by Schaubhut and Thompson (2008), ENFJ was the most frequent type for the Ph.D. climate researchers attending the symposia, with ENFP ranking as only the fifth most frequent personality type (Fig. 2). Similarly, only 7% of symposia participants preferred the ISTJ personality type which is the most frequent personality type for a variety of scientific occupations including: biochemists, biologists, chemists, economists, geoscientists, microbiologists, plant scientists and statisticians (Schaubhut and Thompson 2008).
Symposia participants exhibited a strong preference (82%) for taking in information through Intuition (Fig. 1). Overall, 62% of the college or university faculty in Schaubhut and Thompson (2008) indicated a preference for Intuition, as did the majority of biochemists, biologists, chemists, economists, geoscientists, microbiologist, plant scientists and statisticians. However, none of these career types were as extreme in their preferences for Intuition as the climate researchers in our study. It may well be that this tendency towards Intuition is a by-product of our selection for interdisciplinary scholars over specialists in specific disciplines.
These apparent discrepancies highlight the fact that the personality of two individual climate change scientist may be completely different (as might the personality types of any two members of any population). Thus, while we make suggestions on how the ‘typical’ climate change researcher might more effectively communicate with the ‘typical’ member of the general population, these recommendations will not fit every situation. We therefore encourage all scientists to consider their personality type, and preferred communication style, when developing strategies for effectively communicating with the general public and with other audiences. Efforts to include a ‘balanced approach’ to reach all preferred styles, not just those with which an individual researcher is most naturally comfortable, will increase chances of effective communication with a mixed audience. This is especially important now that more research is done concerning perspectives of the general public on the topic of climate change (Maibach et al. 2009).
The preference for Intuition by early career climate scientists suggests that this group is likely to be more oriented towards future climate impacts than members of the general public, who generally prefer Sensing over Intuition (Fig. 1). For Sensors, the current situation is more relevant and more easily appreciated, and past experience and concrete facts are more trusted than future possibilities. Thus, climate impacts beyond the present or readily foreseeable future may lack relevance among the general public. This is reinforced by Kastens et al. (2009) who suggest that in contrast to the general population, geoscientists are characterized by an ability to think about past and future geological events in addition to the present situation. Scientists who prefer Intuition can help bridge this potential communication divide by starting with the concrete and short term and building towards the big picture without any leaps in cause and effect. By beginning with the current state and moving on to how the current state is changing, using a step-by-step approach to how these changes will impact the future, Intuitive researchers can facilitate an understanding of these connections with a Sensing audience. When communicating with Sensors, it is also important to focus on concrete near-home examples. While the plight of polar bears may be of great concern to Intuitives, Sensors are likely to be motivated more by documented temperature or seasonal changes in their local areas. In other words, with this audience, you may think globally, but you should speak locally.
Our sample of climate researchers was equally split between Feeling and Thinking preferences, a significant over-representation of Thinkers compared to the general population (Fig. 1). Our results suggest that the climate-change research community may more effectively communicate with the general public by including the personal and local impacts of climate change in addition to more analytical results. This is also in line with the preferences of Sensors. The personal/local “Feeling” communication style may come naturally to roughly half of the climate research community, but the other half will need to learn and practice it more to be as naturally effective as their counterparts.
Compared to the United States population, Ph.D. climate scientists also exhibited a strong preference for Judging on the final dichotomy (Fig. 1). This suggests that on average, climate change researchers will prefer to reach a decision or come to closure and ‘move on’ to the next step more quickly than the general population. The general population, with a higher proportion of Perceivers, is more likely to see room for doubt, or want to take more time to explore possible alternatives, especially when outcomes are not likely to be positive. When presenting climate change to the general public, it is important for researchers to confirm what information is still unknown and what areas are still being studied. In this regard, Ward (2008) suggested that “scientists should talk with reporters during the research stage, and not simply when their findings are published in a journal. Sometimes the process of research is what can engage an audience.” As others have pointed out, balancing simplified statements of certainty with more complex statements that reflect the full range of uncertainties associated with climate change is an inherent challenge when communicating with the general public (Moser and Dilling 2004), and one that must be addressed.
The inherent differences in the preferred communication styles of early career Ph.D. climate researchers and the general public (Fig. 1) are likely to exacerbate the challenge of effectively communicating climate change if they are not addressed. Knowledge of personality type provides a powerful tool that can be used to improve communication, and lead to greater public understanding of climate change and its impacts. As preferred communication style varies considerably within the climate change research community (Fig. 2), it is impossible to suggest universal strategies to improve communication. However, we suggest that by being aware of one’s own personality type and communication style, an individual researcher can better consider how to communicate with audiences made up of a broad range of personality types that are likely to be different from his or her own. Improved understanding of personality type can help us communicate better with our students, colleagues and, perhaps most importantly, will facilitate communicating important climate change information with the general public.
Andrew Freedman’s comments
Andrew Freedman of the Washington Post has written on this article [here]. Some excerpts:
While it’s not exactly a big surprise that scientists tend to process information differently than the general public — consider the popular culture view of scientists as eccentrics — this study brings to bear some uniquely promising information to the climate change communications conundrum.
For instance, the study finds that climate scientists tend to fall within the Myers-Brigg category of those who tend to process information based on “intuition,” whereas the general public shows a preference for “sensing.”
Here’s why this particular finding is important. People who are classified as processing information using intuition tend to focus on theories and ask “why” questions, and are interested in the bigger picture more than small details. They are also oriented towards the future, and prefer the use of metaphors, analogies and other “symbolic language.”
“Sensors,” on the other hand, are interested in the present, and tend to relate the present to events in the past. They ask “what” and “how” questions, rather than “why,” and look for facts instead of theories. Sensors also prefer plain language rather than metaphors.
The results suggest that scientists would help facilitate greater public understanding of climate science and climate change if they would discuss the issue’s relevance to the present day, and at the local level. Too often, climate scientists focus their remarks on global projections out to 2050 or 2100, which lack relevance to the here and now. [ JC emphasis]
JC’s test results
You can take the test online [here]. I took the test, I scored INTJ
- moderately expressed introvert
- very expressed intuitive personality
- moderately expressed thinking personality
- moderately expressed judging personality
- personality type
- highest degree (and field)
- profession
- skeptical or convinced re climate change (convinced implying support for the IPCC conclusions)
linky for test doesn’t seem to be working Dr Curry
http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/jtypes2.asp
let me go back and test it
The link worked for me. The first sentence is the key:
As written: “Effectively communicating the complexity of climate change to the public is an important goal for the climate change research community, particularly for those of us who receive public funds.”
Translated: “Effectively communicating the human causes of climate change is an important goal for the climate change research community, particularly for those of us who want more public funds.”
Climate scientists behave “normally” in this situation.
The strategy worked in other fields, but backfired. Many citizens now fear our government had more to do with the 911 event than Iraq did!
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-theory-collapse-twin-towers.html
Past presidents advocated better policies:
George Washington: “Father, I can not tell a lie; I cut the tree.”
Dwight D. Eisenhower: “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.”
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm
I also scored INTJ: Introverted iNtuitive Thinking Judging
Perhaps that allowed us to notice the collapse of our scientific institutions without being distracted by 400 channels of:
a.) Gladiator shows for macho males
b.) Soap operas for abandoned wives
c.) Computer models for scientists
d.) PBS programs for highbrows
Holy mackeral. I got the same as Dr curry- INTJ. Condolenses Dr Curry :-)
They are human, and in need of forgiveness.
=============
Forgiveness probably has the best chance of restoring cherished values that vanished while we argued about climate:
a.) Integrity in government science, and
b.) Citizen’s control over government.
This work will be remembered as the biggest quackery in the history of climate studies.
Heh. :)
I suspect you are right.
Based on your intuition or your sensing?
Joshua,
Scientific/engineering intuition is priceless. It’s knowledge that comes with experience and learning. Don’t laugh at intuition.
What’s the difference between ‘intuition’ and ‘gut feeling’? You’ve got to remember what’s in the lower reaches of the latter before you decide to rely on that!
read the second brain and you’ll understand that there is some truth
in the phrase gut feeling.
http://www.amazon.com/Second-Brain-Scientific-Groundbreaking-Understanding/dp/0060182520
Of course it went against the consensus
You mean even bigger that last time some study was labelled “the biggest quackery etc…..” ?
But it won’t be the biggest indefinitely. The record will be quite short lived. It won’t be long before someone on this blog or whatsupwiththat will say pretty much the same thing about something else.
“are interested in the bigger picture more than small details.”
Thats why every claim by the IPCC must be ripped apart and checked.
They got sooo much wrong.
“sooo much wrong” ? I was just wondering about the relationship of ‘sooo’ to ‘so’?
Does each extra “o” mean fixed linear increase? Or is there a logarithmic relationship involved?
“The statistical validity of the MBTI as a psychometric instrument has been the subject of criticism. It has been estimated that between a third and a half of the published material on the MBTI has been produced for conferences of the Center for the Application of Psychological Type (which provides training in the MBTI) or as papers in the Journal of Psychological Type (which is edited by Myers-Briggs advocates).[36] It has been argued that this reflects a lack of critical scrutiny.”
“Studies have found that between 39% and 76% of those tested fall into different types upon retesting some weeks or years later.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator
Check everything.
What a perfect metaphor for climate change. The results don’t hold up to scrutiny.
My observations
-The link provided by Judith is for a basic free online test, and not the more detailed MBTI type II test.
-Doing the test when your at home/work, grumpy/happy or sober/happy makes a differance to the results.
-Younger people 12-25 haven’t fully developed their perception/judgement preferences.
-Mature older people learn to use their non-prefered preferences more.
-People can legitimately be borderline and thus change at each new taking of the test.
Any of the above are likely to change at least one “letter” when re-testing, but over time I think the MBTI is an accurate indicator of a persons preferences.
So for effective messaging, climate scientists need to provide the “sensor” public with a rapidly warming planet so that the public will “sense” the truth of climate change.
INTJ
spot on. Ive had 4 of those careers
http://www.humanmetrics.com/vocation/JCI.asp?EI=-33&SN=-44&TF=25&JP=28
Myers-Briggs Type Indicatory is pop psychology, popular with human resource types and new-agers (Jungian). Recent research has come up with Big Five, the 5 dimensions of personality.
Do you have a link for the Big Five?
here’s one : http://www.outofservice.com/bigfive/
its more like old pop psych and the Big Five is the new pop psychology.
http://www.outofservice.com/bigfive/results/?oR=0.975&cR=0.778&eR=0.438&aR=0.722&nR=0.094&y=1960&g=m
The only INFJ so far
INFJ here…
Very good reason. It is the fewest of the “four-letter” combos (worldwide). Very enigmatic type ;)
INFJ here also. Strong Intuitive, moderate Judgement, wishy-washy in the other two. I guess I should change careers to a less techincal field – like , I dn’t know, IPCC climate researcher?
I took the test a long time ago and was impressed by the findings. It not only showed me what I was good at and what I liked, but it also pinpointed some of the destructive parts of my personality. Don’t knock it until you’ve tried it.
This explains a lot — ENFJ is almost the worst possible type for a physical scientist (and, IMHO, any other kind of scientist). The N means that they will come up with a theory in based on insufficient data, and the J means that they will defend it in the face of contradictory data that comes in after their mind is made up. The F means they are more concerned about the effect of their theories on other people and less about objective truth. E means they are social types and more likely to get ideas from other people than come up with them themselves.
The ideal theoretician is INTP, with the intuition to leap over missing data but the ability to second-guess wrong theories. The ideal field data gatherer is ISTJ, meticulous and systematic. Think Newton or Kepler for the former and Tycho Brahe for the latter.
I’d definitely anticipate more “issues” from the ‘T’ vs ‘F’ than the ‘S’ vs ‘N’.
Too simplistic. This is an un-holy non-bivalent concept. There are many degrees to each of the basic four (TFNS). Oddly enough, the (8) functions must fall into specific combinations (MBTI-16). Just because you have a “Feeler” does not mean you do not have a “Thinker”. “Sensors” are a little bit more prevalent in a practical sense –“Where is your ‘common-sense’?– is used daily. “iNtuits” can interpolate/extrapolate (I/E functions) a little easier.
No, there are Thinker/Feelers on both sides of the debate, no MBTI personality distinctions.
Understood that there are degrees to all of the 8 and that even scoring 100 percent F does not mean that the person is incapable of thought. I view it more as a tendency of which side of the brain is preferred.
Definitely no argument that there are Feelers and Thinkers on both sides of the debate. I just tend to prefer dealing with the Thinkers (I’m sure my INTJ score has a bit to do with that).
No.
‘N’ equates to an ability to perceive relationships in data.
‘N’ equates to an ability to perceive relationships in data.
…Even when it is not there.
This suggests that on average, climate change researchers will prefer to reach a decision or come to closure and ‘move on’ to the next step more quickly than the general population.
So: they jump to conclusion and never look back to see that it is based on false assumptions.
They place the last max glacial at 20k years ago and then melt miles thick ice sheets in ten thousand years while they warm the earth rapidly.
That is impossible. They don’t do the math for melting ice; they just calculate it as an inverse function of temperature. You can’t warm the earth while you melt that much ice. You have to melt most of the ice first and warm the earth as the ice retreats and albedo decreases.
You don’t have enough energy to melt that much ice that quickly. Do the math.
Alas, I must agree. Many of us do jump the gun unable to confront complexity.
Slightly off topic but still a useful parallel – premature foreclosure led the US (with us Aussies in tow) into Vietnam. Once there, we kept digging ever deeper holes for ourselves. Alas, the perceived urgency at the time in question created the vortex (and indeed a few dominoes did eventually fall).
More on topic: The apocalyptic language of the CAWG advocates if given full reign would give little pause to ponder more nuanced responses to what seems on balance a warming world.
BTW: Myers-Briggs is a touch passe in modern psychology and psychiatry (which is an observation rather than a condemnation – it may still yield useful insights) but still warmly embraced by many of a religious bent.
I wouldn’t be surprised if half the regular posters here are INTJ. Yet somehow the climate change messaging isn’t a slam dunk for INTJs either.
Maybe the climate change orthodoxy needs to work on their content, not their messaging. That, or supply the rapidly warming planet I mentioned earlier.
I took the test (which as Bruce notes is fairly suspect) years ago and, like Judy, I scored as an INTJ, which seemed to fit me rather well. I have a PhD in operations engineering (in simulation methodology in particular), am a professor of operations management in a business school at a university, and am a skeptic regarding CAGW and climate change in general.
They need to quit trying how to best convince everyone that they are right and start going back and going over their their theory for the past major warmings and ice ages. They made mistakes in basic physics. They warm and cool the earth rapidly with small changes to energy balance. They rapidly freeze and melt huge amounts of ice with small changes to energy balance. This may work with their personality type, but this don’t work for many of us engineers.
I think they are a lot different–e.g., they don’t consider mathematicians or engineers to be scientists, they think schoolteachers are saving the world from the evils of America, they blame Bush for not bowing down to the UN and for not signing Kyoto. They want to model American society after France or anyone else who hates America which explains why they support academics like Ward Churchill and leaders like Castro and Chavez. They provide nothing of value to society.
Eric G: M-B types are repeatably measurable, stable, and have predictive power. The fact that other sets of axes exist, even better more repeatable ones, does not falsify that.
It is a fun hobby to train yourself to guess someone’s M-B type in 15 minutes of casual conversation. I was into doing that a couple of decades ago and would usually get at least 3 of the axes right in any given case.
I was an ISTP – the diametric opposite of the climate researcher ENFJ on each trait. Perhaps that’s some of the oil and vinegar.
ISTPs are described as:
I can recognize myself in that description.
The climate researcher ENFJ personality is described as:
I think we’re onto something here :)
I told you it was cats and dogs.
===========
Kim, you rock.
Maybe, maybe not. :)
I am an ENFJ, but a computer programmer (Highest qualification HND- UK). Which is 2nd on the technical list after scientist.
I am definitely in the skeptic camp.
Love both your blog and Steve McIntyre’s.
Retook the test.
This time, where a I had answered a marginal question one way the first time, I reversed the answer.
This time I came out as INFP.- A completely different profile.
Funny thing is that this also had a lot of things I could relate to and see fits.
I guess the test has a rather large margin of error.
The problem is that many of the questions are not ones that can be truly answered yes or no.
A tool of very limited use, with a margin of error exceeded by few things beyond the proxies used for historical temperature reconstructions.
I agree that the Myers-Briggs test is dubious, for the reason that has been outlined above, that the psychometric design of the questions have given inconsistent results.
Every time I did the test, for example, I seem to come up with a different profile. I consider that it can at best be used for ice breaking when groups first get together.
The astrology comment by Roy Weiler is quite an apt one. The generalisations about the various personality types remind me very much of astrology and the way humans can read into these descriptions anything that they wish.
Peter:
Mosher has an interesting explanation for this see:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/27/climate-scientists-are-different-from-the-general-public/#comment-116476
Seems appropriate!
Roy Weiler
Roy: Seems appropriate?
Possibly, but it could also be a form of ego based confirmation bias.
Lets face it, no-one appears to want to be an ENFJ at the moment because of the implied association with climate scientists, whilst those falling into some other category are using it as a means to parade like peacocks.
It would be interesting to run the test whilst randomly switching the character descriptions. My intuition/gut feeling is that the level of perceived accuracy would drop little.
Correct me if I am wrong, but was not the basic thrust of Mosher’s argument you linked that even though the model was flawed (astrology/complete croc), because the results happened to fit then the model was still useful?
Just wondering how many fellow sceptics might find that a pause for thought, since it is an oft repeated criticism of climate science?
Peter:
You may wish to understand I place very little confidence to any of these “results”, and place roughly the same amount of confidence in GCM results. Mostly this just seems like a fun time in an otherwise very serious discussion. It could be argued, therefore, that I consider climate science to be astrology, and that would not be a bad assumption. For me the truth is, even if they get EVERY parameter completely right, you cannot account for the things you cannot predict, say volcanoes. At best, GCMs can provide a loose sort of guidance, but not a real prediction of the future. I suspect that astrology can provide us with such similar, ‘certain’ results.
Roy Weiler
Roy: Actually I am pretty much of the same mind set.
I think your point about having the parameters right but still not being able to account for the things you can’t predict is both correct and very well put.
To outsiders, INTJs may appear to project an aura of “definiteness”, of self-confidence. This self-confidence, sometimes mistaken for simple arrogance by the less decisive, is actually of a very specific rather than a general nature; its source lies in the specialized knowledge systems that most INTJs start building at an early age. When it comes to their own areas of expertise — and INTJs can have several — they will be able to tell you almost immediately whether or not they can help you, and if so, how. INTJs know what they know, and perhaps still more importantly, they know what they don’t know.
###
does this mean I’m not really arrogant.
Mosher:
I am INTJ also, I have always been concerned that I seem arrogant about my areas of expertise, but always admit when I cannot help. This is all a bit weird really, I have always felt a tad to arrogant!
Can all of us really be thrown into these little boxes?
Curiously, I have never held any of the “recommended” jobs, outside of management.
I must admit I have difficulty in lumping Hillary Clinton, Marie Curie, and Stephen Hawking in the same group!
Roy Weiler
Results:
You are:
very expressed introvert
moderately expressed intuitive personality
slightly expressed thinking personality
distinctively expressed judging personality
You have to admit that: “Hillary Clinton, Madame Curie and Stephen Hawking walk into a bar….” has interesting comedic potential.
Pete:
That would be a GREAT joke!! Although Stephen does not so much walk as roll. :)
Roy Weiler
Sorry. But more spot on.
“INTJs are known as the “Systems Builders” of the types, perhaps in part because they possess the unusual trait combination of imagination and reliability. Whatever system an INTJ happens to be working on is for them the equivalent of a moral cause to an INFJ; both perfectionism and disregard for authority may come into play, as INTJs can be unsparing of both themselves and the others on the project. Anyone considered to be “slacking,” including superiors, will lose their respect — and will generally be made aware of this; INTJs have also been known to take it upon themselves to implement critical decisions without consulting their supervisors or co-workers. On the other hand, they do tend to be scrupulous and even-handed about recognizing the individual contributions that have gone into a project, and have a gift for seizing opportunities which others might not even notice.”
When I look at the things that annoyed me the most over the years a great deal of it comes from this. Also spot on in giving the credit.
Mosher:
I agree, but still seems a bit like astrology!
Roy Weiler
Well unforntunately I hit the astrology description of a scorpio dead on.
I look at it this way. Undoubtedly there are certain dimensions of personality that lead to a fixed number of personality types. I had a 1 in 12 chance of being born in the month that got assigned my personality type. Also, there is a fair amount of confirmation bias going on. ‘ya that fits me” … whatever.
So, do I believe that my personality type derives form the month I was born?. No. Do I believe that the scorpio description fits me better than others? Yes. Is it useful for people to know? yes
First on the list of Scorpio dislikes:
Being Given Only Surface data
That should lead to some fun discussion. ha
Mosher:
LOL, spot on! I suspect we as individuals are not so unique as we believe ourselves to be.
I am definitely in line with the “Being Given Only Surface data”, it seems that extends to Pisces as well ;-)
Roy Weiler
Why are all the descriptions so PC? It would be a lot more fun if they listed the famous and the infamous.
Sorry but what does PC stand for? I cant keep up with all the abns!
Politically Correct.
I do not know Steven, your quick “no-cap” sentence replies on blogs strikes me as a “Perceptive”, but you are “capping” now (Judgmental) ;)
Try testing after and brisk jog around the block, and answer from the deep.
This ENFJ profile explains a lot of what is wrong with climate research. Quick explanations, happy overconfidence, backed by an improvised, flexible and articulate defence.
“an improvised, flexible and articulate defence.”
Nicely put, as usual, David.
“I can recognize myself in that description.”
You can probably recognize yourself in the description of your astrology sign, too. Meyers-Briggs has its good and bad points, but one of the least persuasive things about it are the flattering self-descriptions. This is a common technique used by mystics, psychics, and “personality tests.” It might behoove you to be a little more “skeptical.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forer_effect
I cannot believe that I am in such solid agreement with Robert about anything.
Very well put.
By the way, ENFJ seems like an odd personality for a researcher.
ENTP archetype would be the “scientist type”. ENFJ archetype would be a “diva” or singer. What confuses these tests is when people are in an excited mode and both “perception” and “judgement” (the Briggs contribution to the Jungarian theory) come out at the same time. You have to me relaxed and centered while testing (even with the short test).
Apart from the obvious parallels with astrology WHY DIDN’T ANYBODY INVOLVED IN THE STUDY TRY TO CONTROL FOR EDUCATION BY INCLUDING NON-CLIMATE PHDs?????
I suspect the whole paper is poor of maths and alien to statistical significance.
Next on Climactic Change: “Climatologists do it better: pelvic prowess among PhDs in climate compared to Meteorologists'”.
Psychological tests are like the British weather, if you don’t like them hang on and a new set will soon appear.
Psychological tests are like the British weather, if you don’t like them hang on and a new set will soon appear.
While almost all quotes attributed to Mark Twain are apocryphal, about the only one concerning the weather that he actually uttered is “If you don’t like the weather in New England, just wait a few minutes.” Brits have shown no shame in deleting the “New” from Twain’s quote.
The relevance of Twain’s aphorism to pyschological tests is even more remote than its relevance to British weather. The Meyer-Briggs test has hung in there for some 88 years without undergoing much modification.
(As it happens a copy of Keirsey and Bates’ 1978 book “Please Understand Me” has been sitting on my stairs the past month awaiting return to my bookshelf after being recently returned to me by a borrower to whom I’d lent it several years ago.)
I’m an XTNJ, btw. The X was from scoring right in the middle of the extrovert-introvert dimension. The I presumably comes from my antisocial retreat into deep thought for days on end when stuck on some problem or other. I suspect the E comes from having performed in plays, operas, and choirs for many years as well having given courses of lectures at MIT and Stanford for four decades, plus invited lectures in well over a score of countries.
I particularly enjoy the role of village idiot. This role doesn’t seem to come naturally to INTJ’s, who bring to mind Kevin dont-call-me-stupid Kline’s Oscar-winning performance in A Fish Called Wanda. Wanda to Otto: “To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people. I’ve known sheep that could outwit you. I’ve worn dresses with higher IQs!” Otto to Wanda, one more time: “Don’t call me stupid.”
For his monotonous repetition of this simple mantra throughout the film, Kline got the film’s only Oscar.
My respect for stupidity shot through the roof.
” I particularly enjoy the role of village idiot.”
That actually fits
“When it comes to their own areas of expertise — and INTJs can have several — they will be able to tell you almost immediately whether or not they can help you, and if so, how. INTJs know what they know, and perhaps still more importantly, they know what they don’t know”
The question for INTJ’s is what do we do when we are out of our area of expertise. one role to adopt, is the role of village idiot.
so my question to you would be how and when do you use that persona.
it is more a role than a personality trait. As such I would see it as some sort of compensating mechanism that you use. ( I like this role as well, but usually in the jester form or sometimes trickster )
The other way to use the persona is to play the idiot where you ARE competent. that would be an overcompensation. Perhaps, you play that role to avoid the charges of arrogance. Given that you are compentant in many areas, I suspect you hear that . ( I don’t think so, BTW, yur just INTJ)
INTP, with a “slightly expressed perceiving personality“. Perhaps modified through experience from a “J” by decades of debugging computer programs (and discovering the problem to be something completely different than I thought it was), and watching business requirements change during User Acceptance Testing.
Frankly, I’m reminded of the story I heard quite a while back about how some psychiatrist did a study and concluded that the very vast majority of the human species had some sort of mental problem. (Turned out his “representative sample” was his patient base.) Each of the binary features in this test represents a defect if indulged in at the expense of the other. A mature person would balance conflicting impulses, and could end up self-perceiving leaning over backwards.
For instance, I answered question 18 “You usually plan your actions in advance” with No, even though most of what I do does represent some level of planning, because the unplanned aspects are much more visible to me. Was I leaning over backwards? I dunno. I suspect it depends on what they mean by the question. If I make a spontaneous decision to drive to a store downtown, then spend 5 minutes on the web checking for traffic jams, was it planned?
Frankly, I’m reminded of the story I heard quite a while back about how some psychiatrist did a study and concluded that the very vast majority of the human species had some sort of mental problem.
On my second last alien abduction, the green (in both senses) intern assigned to me said to me “you got the same sort of mental problems all the other humans we tested had.”
On the most recent one the investigator was more professional and complimented me on my nose hairs not turning gray even at my age. But I couldn’t help noticing his own nose hairs were more puce colored than the intern’s had been, which got me to wondering just how many alien abductors had mental problems.
As a professional problem solver myself I was tempted to dig for more details. However alien abductors rarely appreciate that sort of role reversal, and had I not wisely held my peace I rather doubt I’d be here now to tell you any of this. One rarely hears from alien abductees for this very reason.
That is not in itself surprising. The vast majority of the human species suffer at least one physical aliment. It is really the great stigma people attach to mental illness that leads them to conclude that it must be rare.
Last time I took the test I was an INTJ. PhD Chemistry, currently Professor of Physics specialising in experimental quantum information processing. I would be a skeptic on your skeptic/convinced dichotomy, but that’s rather under-nuanced for my taste.
Educated and Employed as an Electrical Engineer (Bachelor degree only): ISTJ
Your Type is
ENTJ
Extraverted Intuitive Thinking Judging
Strength of the preferences %
11 88 1 33
Always surprised when psychology produces results in any way useful.
Personality type-ENTJ– Which is the same as when I was tested last about 7 years ago
Highest Degree- Masters (2) engineering and business (specialization in economics)
Profession- Aerospace Industry
Skeptical of IPCC conclusions
Well, I think this explains a lot more than political preferences with regards to scientists.
Not really. Think of it as a mode of communication. There are ENTJ’s — Dictators, Generals, Strategists — on all sides. There are ISFJ’s — Sentimentalist, Protectors — on all sides. ESFP’s — “NASCAR” fans or “Pot Smokers” — well, that is distinct ;)
I have used MBTI for 15 years for understanding a “person in front” of you. You can not generalized demographics as easily as the paper states.
False typology also can be an issue. Everyone uses the Te/Fe/Si/Ni Ne/Se/Ti/Fi (Jung’s Archetypes), it is just which are more successful for that person. Some of the results seen with “moderately” a function can probably associate a conflict with an opposite function (Fi Te). The “strongly” result can pretty much establish a solid personality operator (unless a false-personality: i.e. test-taker LIKES the INTJ type and takes the test till it gives that result).
As I stated before, an ENFJ is a “DIVA archatype” which would consist of the majority of the ENTERTAINMENT industry. A ENTP would be what the three authors describe; Extraverted Thinking as a primary and Introverted iNtuition as secondary processes of a scientist/inventor. INTJ can work similarly with Introverted iNtuition as primary and Extraverted Thinking as a secondary (“quieter” scientist like Tesla, etc.). An ENFJ is the last “science type” you could want, that is why all of Hollywood comes out speaking of CAGW.
Anyhow, all side of the equation cancel.
I find the authors of this paper very irresponsible in their misrepresentation of their knowledge on the subject
A am INTJ;
You are:
moderately expressed introvert
moderately expressed intuitive personality
distinctively expressed thinking personality
distinctively expressed judging personality
More so than any other personality type, INTJs are brilliant when it comes to grasping complex theories and applying them to problems to come up with long-term strategies. Since this type of “strategizing” is the central focus and drive of the INTJ, there is a happy match between desire and ability in this type. Accordingly, the INTJ is happiest and most effective in careers which allow this type of processing, and which promote an environment in which the INTJ is given a lot of autonomy over their daily lives.
Possible Career Paths for the INTJ:
Scientists/Engineers
Professors and Teachers
Medical Doctors / Dentists
Corporate Strategists and Organization Builders
Business Administrators / Managers/Military Leaders
Lawyers / Attorneys/Judges
Computer Programmers, Systems Analysts and Computer Specialists
So neurochemistry was the right choice after all.
ENTJ
PhD Psychology, working in one of the top 5 defence companies in the world, vote centre right and strongly support the IPCC view of climate change.
Louise
I would greatly value an exchange with you to understand on what basis you support the IPCC view.
ISTJ [ 67 1 25 1 ] Those slightlys are indeed slightly
Graduate Degrees Mechanical Engineering
Natural Philosophy
Potentialist
I predict that most will have I as first letter and T as third. Second and fourth up for grabs.
personality type: INTJ
highest degree (and field): MA Engineering Science
profession: IT project manager
unconvinced
Too often, climate scientists focus their remarks on global projections out to 2050 or 2100, which lack relevance to the here and now…
But mainly it assures that they can’t be proven wrong here and now. Posthumously it does not matter. What personality traits does it suggest?
It listed me as an INTJ. Before I retired, I was an extrovert. Not sure what that means, but I’m not going to concern myself with it. I’ve got license plates to make.
Correction: Not sure what the change from means…
I’ve taken the test a half-a-dozen times since I was a teenager. Every letter except “N” has flipped, some more than once.
There’s always a great hunger in people for someone or something to tell us who we are, but the there is no psychological evaluation that can perform that function.
What we do tells us who we are.
“I’ve got license plates to make.” In some states that is the political retirement program :)
I’m ESFJ (60 12 25 1)
I have no degree
I am a retired military fast jet pilot
I am skeptical of the IPCC position
Does that make me a good match for Louise? :)
Be very careful what you wish for……
ROFLMAO
INTJ
sl introvert
mod intuitive
sl thinking
sl judging
MD Pediatric Pulmonologist
Professor Emeritus
Skeptical of IPCC
I trust my own observations. I study what those observations mean.
dejvu- I feel like it’s 1994 again when I was taking my “Human and Cultural Issues In Technology Management” courses at Pepperdine (MSTM program). Dr. Curtis Page certainly knew how to use the information on myself and my classmates from our Myers Briggs profiles, the Learning Style Inventory (McBer) http://casa.colorado.edu/~dduncan/teachingseminar/KolbLearningStyleInventoryInfo.pdf and the Firo-B by Schutz http://www.hpsys.com/Articles/Why_FIRO_ElementB.htm survey to show the class how you process information (LSI) and relate to people (Meyers Briggs) will impact the cohesivenss and effectiveness of the team to acomplish tasks.
I highly recommend Type Talk at Work http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/550819.Type_Talk_at_Work (Meyers Briggs) for any working group to get past talking past one another to a dialouge on problem identification which then can lead to problem solving.
Thanks for dejvu moment.
PS I test out as an INTP, and in unstressfull enviorments I can adjust to score out at XNTX.
Opps forgot the skill stuff-
1) BA Economics MSU
2) BS Technology Mgt- Pepperdine
3) Executive training Stanford New Product Planning, Mfg Strategy,
4) Dabbled in Systems Dynamics and Theory for fun at Univeristity of Cincinnati and San Jose State
5) Certified Loss Control Engineer (I had to make $ back in 1980).
6) Process Excellance Black Belt with 5 projects completed per the Accounting folks who are the ones that really count in the corporate world when it comes down to measuring things- for your review and bonus anyway.
Double Opps, not following directions (it’s an MB personality thing- of which there are 16 basic types not 4- according to my wife) well follow up. To answer the rest of the questions-
1) I 100% believe mankind effects the climate.
1.1) I am more then a bit unclear how much of the changes in climate (now and in the future) is manmade caused, or specific (CO2, urban heat effect, my watering 100+ rose bushes that would not live without me caring for them- my carbon footprint) to mankind vs natural variation.
1.2) From what I have read of the UN IPCC conclusions (vs 1 and 1.1) I would be classified as skeptical.
1.2.1) Being an ….P, I am more then willing to listen to new information.
Profession-
Semi retired- former chemist, chemical engineer, materials scientist, quality engineer, sourcing manger, project manager, new technology manager, research associate in a polymer characterization lab, etc.- small business owner of a analytical lab and a small B&B.
Careful Mark. If you say “I 100% believe mankind effects the climate” you’re saying that mankind causes the climate to happen. Do you really mean that?
Simon,
Please see 1.1 above.
Mark
Mark, when were you at University of Cincinnati? I earned my graduate degree there from 1988 to 1992.
Evening John,
I was at UC from 1980 through 1981. I studied under Dr. Alfred Kuhn’s- a great guy- tutelage. I headed out to sunny CA in 1981. I think the world economy was in about as bad a shape back then as it is now (gold was about $1000.00 oz back then), the second oil crisis was leading to the big inflation we saw for much of the decade of the 80’s, and the savings in loan crisis lead to my first mortgage being at 12%……………. (1983).
Sounds like some of the climate scientists should have chosen a career in art instead of science, eh?
I though that most of them had. Few show much talent for anything I can recognise as science.
INTJ 33/64/92/50
MSc Chemistry
IT – Technical and Sales
Getting even more sceptical the more I observe climatology and climatologists
First post here, though I’ve been lurking for a while…
INTJ
IT Business Analyst
Education: Masters (Software Development)
I’d probably describe myself as a skeptic (small s), not in particular about AGW, but in general :-) I see an offer, I immediately look for the fine print, and for what they are not saying…
INTJ Steven Hawkin I can see, but Hillary Clinton?
I’m a Libra. I’m
Diplomatic and urbane
Romantic and charming
Easygoing and sociable
Idealistic and peaceable
I’m also somewhat skeptical that a study purporting to assess differences between the general public and people who attend certain symposia can be interpreted as a description of climate scientists’ personality types, although I probably should have expressed that criticism more diplomatically and urbanely.
(I’ll try to go back and take the test later, but I couldn’t resist the comment)
I took the test and scored INFJ. However, I had trouble deciding the answer to many of the questions. The only one I could answer with certainty was whether my desk is always neat and orderly. (Not even close)
Highest degree: MD
Profession: Scientist (biomedical science for most of my active research career but with a recent focus on climate science despite the fact that I am not engaged in it professionally).
Skepticism: Mixed. IPCC conclusions have flaws but are generally correct. More importantly, climate science is not the IPCC, and I base my conclusions mainly on what I encounter in the scientific literature plus background knowledge rather than from the IPCC reports.
I did take it, but so far, my comment has disappeared into Internet limbo. I scored INFJ and I hope the other details will show up eventually.
I share my personality type with Chaucer, Goethe, and Billy Crystal.
I’m a Libra. I’m
Diplomatic and urbane
Romantic and charming
Easygoing and sociable
Idealistic and peaceable
Fred wins the thread.
The real difference is between Climate Researchers and Climate Scientists because scientists discard a hypothesis if it is not supported by observation and apparently researchers simply ignore observation if it contradicts thier research hypothesis.
OLR has increased contrary to the projected decrease that was supposed to occur according to the AGW hypothesis.
Clouds and watervapour account for well over 90% of the Earth’s 33°C greenhouse effect leaving only 3.3°C attributable to CO2 and with the 14.77micron band already well over 80% saturated additional CO2 even a ten fold increase would therefore not be able to increase the greenhouse effect by any more than 20% of the 3.3°C already attributable to CO2.
From 1910 to 1942 the temperature increased while CO2 emissions increased marginally from 3.5 to 4Gt/year but from 1942 to 1975 the global temperature dropped while CO2 emissions increased from 4 to 20Gt/year.
The researchers called this a correlation the scientists called this no correlation and those at the Hadley CRU simply changed the data between the 2001 version and the 2007 version to make the global cooling from 1942 to 1975 disappear making them neither scientists or researchers.
Any one of these points would be cause to reject the AGW hypothesis if one was a true scientist which is why the article uses the term “climate researchers” instead of “climate scientists” who are bound by strict science protocol.
Personality type differences between Ph.D. climate researchers and the general public: implications for effective communication
C. Susan Weiler, Jason K. Keller, Christina Olex
apparently researchers simply ignore observation if it contradicts thier research hypothesis.
You may be projecting. I’ve noticed on this blog that you yourself ignore even the most elementary observations when they contradict your hypotheses.
“We suggest that climate researchers will be more effective in conveying their messages if they are aware of their own personality type and potential differences in preferred learning and communication styles between themselves and the general public”
I, on the other hand, suggest that discovering the concept of quality control and applying it to their work will ultimately do far more to improve their ability to convince the public that their work has any validity.
ENTP moderately in each category. A lot of change from 25 years ago. Kept seeing differences between my first impulse and the reality of how I actually live.
oops. AB math, economics. JD
Initially, simply skeptical of any expert predictions given the lessons of history. The more I learn about the lack of quality control, the more skeptical I get of CAGW.
INTJ
Geologist
Confirmed sceptic and rare poster because I have become disillusioned with the politicisation of science in this post modern world.
Many geologists are sceptics because we view the world in a longer time frame than the satellite age. The earth is 4.5 billion years old. If you think of that history as a pathway where every step is a 100 million years of time, human history represents the paint on the end of the last step.
“Many geologists are sceptics because we view the world in a longer time frame than the satellite age.”
Sorry, no:
http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position10.htm
Sorry, yes: Many geologists are skeptics and they are underrepresented by their leadership, yet they are taxed. It’s tyranny, Robert.
=================
Robert
Please note the statement says that humans are “A” major factor and not “THE” driving factor.
Also note that they recommend “Cost effective” approaches. Ok–what do you recommend???
You can parse the words all you want; they don’t support your contention that “many geologists are skeptics.”
A carbon tax. Maximally efficient, neutral or helpful from a budgetary perspective, secondary benefits in the form of cleaner air and water. Very cost-effective, especially given the alternative of BAU.
Robert:
For you:
:)
Yes taxes are extremely efficient LOL.
Roy Weiler
Yes taxes are extremely efficient LOL.
So you’re as ignorant of basic economics as you are in the realm of the physical sciences.
Am I supposed to be surprised?
ENTJ (22/12/38/56)
MSc (Mathematical Physics)
IT Managment (retired)
Skeptical that anthropogenic CO2 will have any adverse effect on climate or humanity and wouldn’t trust IPCC as far as I can spit.
In the vernacular of J. R. Dunn (“Green Twilight”) Climatologists practice bong science–i.e., “the kind of thing you’d hear in the college dorm after the third or fourth bowl.”
Knowledge of personality type provides a powerful tool that can be used to improve communication, and lead to greater public understanding of climate change and its impacts.
Does anyone here really believe this?
huxley – thanks – I was afraid of self-certifying myself mad, since the rest of the world seems to have turned ga-ga. NO, I DO NOT BELIEVE IN ANY OF THIS GARBAGE.
NO, I DO NOT BELIEVE IN ANY OF THIS GARBAGE.
Ok, so that makes you an S and an F. That you’re here at all suggests you could be an E. This narrows you down to ESFJ or ESFP. Probably the former, given how decisively you’ve rejected it.
If you’re an ESFJ, what does that mean?
“ESFJs are people persons – they love people. They are warmly interested in others. They use their Sensing and Judging characteristics to gather specific, detailed information about others, and turn this information into supportive judgments. They want to like people, and have a special skill at bringing out the best in others. They are extremely good at reading others, and understanding their point of view. The ESFJ’s strong desire to be liked and for everything to be pleasant makes them highly supportive of others. People like to be around ESFJs, because the ESFJ has a special gift of invariably making people feel good about themselves.”
Is that you?
More Jung science?
Believe this all? Perhaps/probably not. (My rating is in another post). But it can be useful in recognizing that not all your co-workers and employees, or the boss for that matter- even if most of them are chemists like I am- take in and process information the same way I do. Or how they react when threatened- “opposite corner”. There are some useful nuggets to consider.
And this thread will be remembered as the best evidence of human folly.
Anybody giving any credence to a 4-degree personality description scale, ought to believe in Al Gore and Nostradamus. Many idols have fallen, tonight.
folly perhaps, but the personality pattern of commenters is very distinct. Huxley observed early:
I counted 26 types so far – 12 were INTJ. Huxley’s guess was pretty good. If you then look at the combinations with 3 of 4 traits, INTP, INFJ, ISTJ, ENTJ, they account for another 10 – each of them being a doubleton or more. Cumulative -. 22 of 26.
Three singletons with 2 changes – ENFJ, the climate researcher type (Peter Smith), ENTP (Stan), ISTP (me).
One singleton with 3 changes – ESFJ (Rob B – retired military test pilot).
Tu quoque Steve.
There is no such a thing as a personality inventory. Please apply one millionth of your climate auditing experience to Myers-Briggs, tell me if any of it survives longer than a neutrino going from CERN to Gran Sasso.
http://www.ehow.com/how_6909187_debunk-myers-briggs.html
doncha like parlor games every now and then?
he’s a party pooper.
cruel scorpio moshpit. ya know scorpios hate being given only surface data. and we make great detectives
Mr. McIntyre:
There are a lot of INTJ’s, including me. I am curious what this says about AGW believers and/or skeptics?
Roy Weiler
Well, since I am INTJ, i wonder if this says something about who is attracted to this blog. Since Steve M has a different type, would be interesting to see if INTJ predominate at Climate Audit
Dr. Curry:
I agree, though I am curious if this is just astrology under the guise of science. Not really sure at this point.
I could read horoscopes and come to similar conclusions, that does not make them correct assumptions. Interesting exercise non the less! :)
Roy Weiler
Dr. Curry:
I have thought on this further, I wonder not only about Climate Audit, but also about WUWT. I read WUWT often, but rarely comment. I wonder how this poll would show on those websites? I do tend to comment here more often, even given my lack of credentials.
What I find most telling is a lack of response from Robert, Joshua, and temp. They may just be busy with real life, but seems odd they have not commented.
Just my observations.
RoyWeiler
not sure what type anthony is? would be interesting to test this out at the other web sites.
I’m INTJ too, also Aquarian, and an Enneagram 6 — which really gives away the show for those in the know.
When I was in college during the seventies, people talked about astrology a lot. At first I thought they believed in astrology but later I realized that people liked having a special jargon to talk about themselves and each other.
Meyers-Briggs has its points — note, as Steve M, does, the preponderance far beyond statistical expectations of INTJs here.
However, in terms of climate scientists making their case to the public, I don’t believe they will find help in Meyers-Briggs. Most of the skeptics attracted to this blog are much like the climate scientists in MB terms. Yet these skeptics, myself included, still resist the message climate scientists put out.
Anthony Watts has to be ENTP. How else could he create that ingenious blog of his?
Dr. Curry:
It would be interesting to test on other websites, may actually be more interesting then the polls at random on the public( I have no faith in polls given their history) are. Perhaps you could really place skeptics and supporters into their proper perspective.
Interesting. You may actually have enough influence to make this happen on many websites (blogs); WUWT, CA, RC, blackboard, etc.
Something to ponder with respect to uncertainty. What I do find interesting is, even here, many people are not posting their results. Are they disappointed with their results or did not take the test?
Roy Weiler
Saint Judith,
Aren’t you a bit concerned that you are INTJ? Shouldn’t scientists have a ‘P’ at the end? In the context of this survey, it seems that ‘J’ stands for coming to a conclusion. Wouldn’t that be more appropriate for lawyers or legislators? Shouldn’t scientists see all the possibilities spread out before them rather than embracing one?
And what does that “tell” you, Roy?
The fact that some people don’t respond indicates this to me.
They might rather see the dialogue play out in a frame of politics or political terms rather than personality terms.
Me? reading the climategate mails I cared nothing for the political stuff. I made of folder of political mails and never went back to them. the first time I had dinner with Mcintyre , I asked him what got him interested in climate, he mentioned puzzles. His whole demeanor changed and it was clear to me ( a puzzle lover) that he was deeply motivated by figuring out puzzles. When we discussed politics, it turned out he was liberal. I’m libertarian. It was clear neither one of us cared much about politics.. so back to puzzles and figuring things out..And when they played around with FOIA law, I just had to shake my head. Don’t they get what drives us? dont they get that we will research every nook and cranny of the law and not let go of the bone..
Or like when Steig challenged JeffId to “do his own science” or take a matlab class from him. I read that and said. “jesus christ, he just threw down a challenge to Jeff and ryan. doesnt he know what kind of people they are. Not their politics, politics don’t matter. does he get that he just waved a red flag in front of the bull?
No, they want to see this is as a frame of denier/believer. right/left. pro science/anti science. That, I’ve been trying to explain, was the fundamental mistake they made.
“Don’t they get what drives us?”
We sure do. We just wonder how long it’s going to take before you stop spinning your wheels in that ditch of anti-science denial.
My guess: a long time.
One wonders what drives you, Robert; it doesn’t seem to be curiosity.
=======================
Shouldn’t scientists see all the possibilities spread out before them rather than embracing one?
That kind of scientist tends to gravitate towards a career in philosophy and to present papers at conferences where all the participants appreciate that no one can make up their mind about anything. P could just as well stand for “philosopher.”
The scientist’s job is to explain the world. Multiple explanations of the same phenomenon are only considered acceptable when it can be explained that they are merely different but equivalent perspectives, such as viewing a signal in the time vs. the frequency domain, or viewing an electron as a wave function or a probability cloud, or when offered in jest, such as the recent revival of the old phlogiston theory of combustion: electronic components are designed to keep the smoke in, and when the smoke escapes they stop working.
Joshua:
“What I find most telling is a lack of response from Robert, Joshua, and temp.
And what does that “tell” you, Roy?”
Robert:
““Don’t they get what drives us?”
We sure do. We just wonder how long it’s going to take before you stop spinning your wheels in that ditch of anti-science denial.
My guess: a long time.”
You guys are like the Abbot and Costello of climate science!! LOL
CO2’s on first, forcing on second, Hansen on third, Mann’s pitching.
Thank you for your input!!
Roy Weiler
So – what did a lack of response “tell” you Roy?
Don’t be shy. You obviously felt it was instructive somehow. How is it instructive?
Joshua:
You must have missed this:
CO2′s on first, forcing on second, Hansen on third, Mann’s pitching.
Roy Weiler
I didn’t miss it Roy.
Now you said that a lack of response was “telling.” So what did it “tell” you.
This is the third time I’ve asked you the question. If you keep posting in response to me without answering, some folks might get the impression that you’re ducking.
What did a lack of response “tell” you, Roy?
Joshua:
:)
Roy –
You earlier said that a lack of response from me and from others was “telling.”
I have asked you numerous times to explain what was “telling.’ You have responded to my posts – but still haven’t answered that simple question.
Man up, Roy. Stand up for your beliefs.
You stated that you could draw conclusions – so you should have the stones to state what those conclusions are.
One might assume that the conclusions you drew from a lack of evidence were wrong, and that you’re embarrassed to admit that because it would expose your tendency to draw conclusions without sufficient evidence.
But even if that is the case, Roy, you don’t need to be ashamed. We all make mistakes.
What would be worse is to continuously duck opportunities to either explain how your conclusions were correct or to just admit your error and move on.
Anytime you can muster up the integrity to answer the question, feel free to go right ahead and do so. Posting an emoticon doesn’t answer the question.
Joshua:
for you :)
Roy Weiler
P.S. Try understanding the underlying assertion.
Honestly Joshua, I could not care less about your opinions. This was really directed at Robert and he was at least smart enough to not respond. But welcome to the forum!!
Roy Weiler
Why won’t you answer the question, Roy?
You made an assertion. I asked you what it was. In response, you post smiley-faces.
Just answer the question.
Don’t they get what drives us?
Or like when Steig challenged JeffId to “do his own science” or take a matlab class from him. I read that and said. “jesus christ, he just threw down a challenge to Jeff and ryan. doesnt he know what kind of people they are. Not their politics, politics don’t matter. does he get that he just waved a red flag in front of the bull?
What I “get” is that some people can’t handle it when someone is slighly snarky to them or one of their mates on the internet. FFS, that was more than two years ago, get over it. If you can’t then forgive some of us if we are of the opinion that what “drives” you is a need to play the martyr and act like a drama queen, as well as an overwhelming sense of your own importance.
Heh, Joshua stamps his pretty little foot, andrew adams whines, tempterrain picks punctuation buggers out of his nose and Robert sleeps off a comment binge. I think it’s gonna be a pretty good day.
===============
Theo Goodwin | September 27, 2011 at 8:47 pm |
Saint Judith,
Aren’t you a bit concerned that you are INTJ? Shouldn’t scientists have a ‘P’ at the end? In the context of this survey, it seems that ‘J’ stands for coming to a conclusion.”
My how a silly little inventory can reveal so much. J can stand for a few things like, which hypothesis is the best to follow, would be a judgement. It doesn’t imply jumping to a conclusion or coming to a conclusion with the exclusion of other evidence. It can be a pragmatic thought process, where best to apply ones efforts?
I am a weak J (50). In some rating schemes, i would have scored an X. In any event, my personality is what it is. Newton and Bohr have been judged to be INTP (on what basis i don’t know).
Well if I’m whining at least it’s about what someone said yesterday and not what they said two years ago.
I love it when they whine about what I said two years ago. Arthur Smith’s search bots are out to four years now and counting.
=============
Theo:
I am not sure I can agree with that. At some point you need to stand your ground, even if you are wrong. If more evidence comes to pass, you will alter your position, but really, is living in the wishy washy world of Charlie Brown the right way to go?
Honestly, I stand by my convictions until they are proved wrong. Can you make “real life” decisions otherwise?
Roy Weiler
What I had in mind is something like appreciating both Big Bang Theory and String Theory. I don’t suggest that someone should strive to treat them as equals, but I think it is a mistake to say that the String Theorists offered nothing. However, this entire discussion is pretty much parlor talk, which is OK at times.
Theo:
“However, this entire discussion is pretty much parlor talk, which is OK at times.”
It is a bit fun for a change. Interesting non the less. :)
“What I had in mind is something like appreciating both Big Bang Theory and String Theory.”
I agree, both have their problems, but while Big Bang seems more likely as an effective theory then String, String does teach us important things about what we do not know, and may in the end turn out to be true. That is ever the quest!!
Roy Weiler
OK, Roy – let’s break this down a bit, shall we?
First, you post this:
Then, you post this:
Then, when asked numerous times what was “telling” about a lack of response from me among others, you post this:
And again:
And again:
And now you post this?:
Honestly Joshua, I could not care less about your opinions.
So first you speculate, specifically, about me, and then you respond, repeatedly to my asking you to explain what your speculations were, and then, you claim that you “could not care less” about my opinions.
You specifically indicate that you care about what I think. You, repeatedly, respond to my posts asking you about that (without explaining your earlier assertion). And then you contradict your earlier statement by saying that you don’t care about what I think.
Oh, and btw – I did respond about the MBI . Yet, still, you’re unwilling to say what was so “telling?”
Just man up, Roy.
Just explain what you thought was “telling” about a lack of response.
Good lord, Josh, you need to drink a serious amount of milk of magnesia…
I guess there’s a personality type that has an atrophied sense of humor!
Steve – thanks for the statistical breakdown so far. Interesting. I hope you continue to update it.
Here’s my data:
INTJ (although very close to being an ENTJ)
– Serial entrepreneur in high tech – CEO & inventor (one strike-out, one base hit, one home run)
– College dropout (though most who know me assume I have an MBA until I correct them)
– Strongly pro-scientific method. A skeptic even before CAGW existed (back when skeptics just had to worry about psychics, spoon-benders, UFOs and ghosts)
– Engineering-centric mindset. Create and ship functional products. Build viable businesses. Make real things work.
– Generally libertarian-leaning
Based on my experience, the Myers Briggs indicator is a pretty low-res, blunt instrument. It’s not necessarily wrong but it’s not precise enough to be really actionable. There is an element of “horoscope remapping effect” to interpreting the descriptions causing some to grant it a higher hit rate than it deserves. It’s mostly interesting for party games and social mixers. Perhaps that’s why it was seen as applicable to climate science. :-)
Add me to the ISTP list – systems analyst. ‘craftsmen’ seems to be an apt summery.
Don’t need to take the test. Have had it several times as one of the frequent fads my industry has gone through (first time was at least 15 years ago). An ISTJ at a company of ISTJs (engineers and chemists).
The fact that climate scientists are ENFJs may indicate why some of their harshest critics are from the engineering and “hard science” areas.
BTW, my field is industrial chemistry. We’ve had a long history of trying to “communicate” with the general public. In the bad old days, our attitude was pretty much that of today’s climate scientists. “The public just doesn’t understand the compexities involved here.” Any guess on how that turned out?
Oddly enough, we’ve never had any academics trying to come up with excuses as to why it’s been so difficult for us.
“The challenge of communicating the science of climate change will be reduced if climate change researchers consider the links between personality types, communication tendencies and learning preferences.”
No, the challenge of communicating the science of climate change will be reduced when climate change researchers publish their data and supporting information.
Exactly. For example, does this personality profile capture the inner nature of a existential authoritarians who become so completely dedicated to preserving their own individual liberty from usurpation by government that they were willing to found the country on a set of declarations and contracts that limit even their own ability to diminish the God-given rights of others who disagree withe them?
William nailed it.
I want them to explain how they can go from a Glacial Maximum at the end of a long cold part of an ice age where they go from still building toward max ice volume to a period of rapid warming and melting of miles thick ice sheets in ten thousand years. The energy required to melt that much ice in ten thousand years cannot be obtained with a little CO2, some small changes to solar radiation and minor orbit changes.
I want them to show me the math. They used their Intuition, rather than data, to determine that Ice Volume was an inverse function of Temperature, then they moved on. Their Models and Theory have the ICE WRONG! That does mean that other parts of their Models and Theory are also wrong.
I guess this is something only and engineer would notice.
If there is a consensus scientist out there, show how you melt that much ice that quickly when earth temperature is the same as when you were building the ice.
Should read I guess this is something only an engineer would notice.
Wow, I am sure most contributors are for more accomplished than I am. However, is anyone noticing the isolationist nature of this. Some are responding with the word the term ‘scientist’. The title and context of the article is specifically ‘climate scientist’, a special breed apart, all other scientists, engineers, mathematicians, and more it would appear, have no need to find a better way to communicate for the betterment of human endeavors.
I see that Steve M. has given a response. I find myself feeling humble to be able to have a line in the same blog.
More importantly, the strongest feeling I have is that from the beginning, if climate scientists were really interested in serving the general public instead of their own ego, they would have engaged someone such as Steve M. in their work (as Dr. Curry has), instead of trying to vilify him. That single action on Dr. Curry’s part speaks volumes.You can talk about all of the personality types that you want; however, just being honest, showing that you value to whom you speak is really all that is necessary.
Tell a half-truth, an unsubstantiated statement, or not live in the manner in which one is suggesting others should live, and you are telling your audience, they are of little value. I can give you lists of hundreds of people that I know personally that think in like manner, only at this point, they simply are not ready to listen any more. —And belief, according to political preference is pathetic.
FINALLY, AFTER MANY EMAILS, I FINALLY ENGAGED ONE PERSON BY PHONE, (A MINOR PLAYER IN A CLIMATE SCIENCE RELATED FIELD)
I AM SO ANXIOUS FOR THE DAY THAT THIS PERSON WILL GIVE ME THE GREEN LIGHT TO SPEAK. THIS PERSON STARTED CRYING (A LITTLE) AND SAID THAT IF I STATE WHAT I REALLY THINK, I WOULDN’T FEEL COMFORTABLE WALKING ON CAMPUS AND I AM AFRAID I WOULD BE LESS LIKELY TO SECURE FUNDING FOR ADDITIONAL RESEARCH. ALL THIS JUNK ABOVE PALES COMPARED TO THIS KIND OF PERVASIVE ATMOSPHERE. IF YOU ARE A CLIMATE SCIENTIST, HOW DOES THAT MAKE YOU FEEL ABOUT YOUR PROFESSION?
Finally, I would like to have a one question added to surveys,—-How old are you? Many of us have seen and lived through stuff like this before.
I wonder what this questionnaire would get from activist organizations and more specifically, from Greenpeace and WWF volunteers.
Afternoon Steve,
I would estimate the WWF and Greenpeace percentages as follows:
70%F
70%S
70% J
50% I or E
Mark
Mark helpfully demonstrates where “skeptics” get their data from. ;)
:)
AND SAID THAT IF I STATE WHAT I REALLY THINK, I WOULDN’T FEEL COMFORTABLE WALKING ON CAMPUS
Those who can articulate their position clearly and convincingly, regardless of what it is, should not be going around in a state of fear. Those who can’t have everything to fear, and are almost certainly in the wrong line of work.
This sounds like someone who could benefit from job counseling, without which their odds of promotion aren’t great. You can’t succeed in academia by promoting something you don’t believe in, nor by keeping what you do believe to yourself.
I AM AFRAID I WOULD BE LESS LIKELY TO SECURE FUNDING FOR ADDITIONAL RESEARCH.
The public has been led to believe, by Desmogblog, John Mashey, and others, that funding was available to qualified climate scientists to promote whichever side of the climate debate they believed in and were willing to make the scientific case for. If that’s no longer true, what does this say about corporate interests who find carbon caps incredibly inconvenient economically? That they’re no longer finding them so, or that they’re throwing in the towel, or what?
Vaughn –
You can’t succeed in academia by promoting something you don’t believe in, nor by keeping what you do believe to yourself.
Climate scientist (actually several of them), NASA GSFC 1991 – IF I STATE WHAT I REALLY THINK, I CAN KISS MY CAREER GOODBYE.
After I asked them what they really thought about global warming.
Personally, I lost a job in 1993 by answering the same question – that was the end of the interview.
The public has been led to believe, by Desmogblog, John Mashey, and others, that funding was available to qualified climate scientists to promote whichever side of the climate debate they believed in and were willing to make the scientific case for.
If you believe that I have a bridge in New Mexico and ocean front property in Arizona you might be interested in buying.
Vaughan
I have never worked in academia, but if you have a boss who strongly believes in a position (perhaps harmful AGW, don’t you think disagreeing with their belief might negatively affect their opinion of you?
I used to think more as you seem to, until I had discussions with a former boss who was very religious. He liked (or seemed to like discussing the Bible) and I would discuss it with him from a historical perspective and would point out why I thought it was not as believable as he thought. I was later told I did not get a promotion because he didn’t like that I didn’t believe in the Bible.
From an availability of funding perspective, isn’t the issue “who has the money”? For example, if you worked for NASA and wanted to do a study on “The reliability/accuracy of the current GCMs in predicting future rainfall”, do you think the folks there are likely to see your work funded?
I was not recommending that this person argue with or contradict anyone. My only recommendation was that this person get job counseling. Is it your recommendation that their career would be safer without job counseling?
From an availability of funding perspective, isn’t the issue “who has the money”?
This is more true now than it has been for the past 70 years. That’s all the more reason people should be looking for help these days especially in the matter of career guidance etc.
I was later told I did not get a promotion because he didn’t like that I didn’t believe in the Bible.
If the job counselor (ombudsman, HR rep, whatever) advocates brown-nosing, so be it, whatever it takes. I’m merely pointing out that this person is currently in a difficult situation that is likely to get worse without expert human-resources help.
For years people advised victims of sexual harassment to put up with it or lose their job. That advice may have been appropriate in the days when the HR department’s only responsibility was hiring and firing. There is an increasing expectation nowadays, at least in some countries, that HR has the backs of the employees as much as those of the employers. You seem to be advocating a return to the “good old days” of no employee ombudsmen or other such resources for employees facing a hostile workplace situation.
Dr. Pratt: And by the way — what in the world is a computer science professor doing bringing politics into a discussion of object-oriented software development?
Perhaps I’m missing something. Perhaps you can explain, since you are also a Stanford computer science professor.
But my bet is that you can’t. My bet is that you are quite comfortable with a status quo where conservative computer science students have their political convictions ridiculed in class and almost all other students share that ridicule with the professor.
I’ll also bet that you would be upset if the shoe was on the other foot, and liberal students found a conservative professor regularly ridiculing Obama, the Democratic party and the climate change orthodoxy in a Stanford class.
Tell me different. I dare you.
Dr. Pratt: How do you know this person’s fears in the academic world are groundless? Some years ago I took a Stanford computer science course offered online and I was astonished at how routinely the instructor jokingly denigrated Bush and conservatives — it even showed up in exam questions.
If I were a real Stanford student, looking to get along with instructors and students and hoping for an academic career, I’d sure keep my mouth tightly shut about my conservative opinions.
As it stands, after I rethought my liberal politics and dared to voice conservative stands I found myself ostracized and even driven out of several liberal groups where I had once been comfortable.
I don’t think you know what you are talking about. You are ideologically blinded as to how difficult life can be for conservatives in a liberal worlds.
Heavens, get me to the fainting couch. Certain engineering classes will weed out 50% of the students from that career path. Some required no-credit classes will show horrors of bad engineering design, scared-straight-style. This stuff toughens your skin. College is a great place to get away from the hand-holding of high school. You can always do the Home School U route if you have a sensitive disposition.
Web: My hide is plenty tough — in no small part due to dime-a-dozen snarky types like yourself.
My point is simply that the liberal academic world is bigoted towards conservatives while academic careers have become exceedingly competitive.
It’s a well-known truism that people hire people like themselves, so being a known conservative is a great way to rule yourself out of competition in academia and even many hi-tech companies as well. Of course, if it’s not your ox being gored, Web, why should you care?
If that’s the way game is played, that’s the way it’s played. I don’t admire liberal bigotry but I live with it. However, I don’t have to be silent for the self-serving pretension of someone like Dr. Pratt that liberal bigotry doesn’t exist and conservatives on liberal campuses have no reason to be afraid.
WHT,
Why is it no surprise that someone who misses the point huxley made so deliberately could also beleive in the idea of peak oil so easily?
Because geology is where a lot of those aspiring engineers who couldn’t handle the math eventually went to. Now we have ignorant rockheads among us, saying “what finite resources?” and we have people like you that believe them. Ha ha.
However, I don’t have to be silent for the self-serving pretension of someone like Dr. Pratt that liberal bigotry doesn’t exist and conservatives on liberal campuses have no reason to be afraid.
You may have overlooked my sentence “Those who can’t [articulate their position clearly and convincingly] have everything to fear.” “Liberal bigotry” is code for “my instructors/fellow students/staff don’t understand me.” One way this can happen is for the instructors etc. to be incapable of understanding your explanation however clear, and then the charge of bigotry may be reasonable depending on the circumstances. The other is when you can’t explain your own views in a way others can understand, and in that case the charge of “liberal bigotry” is itself bigotry.
Bigotry can indeed exist in its own right, but often a failure to communicate is misinterpreted as bigotry. If you’re unable to communicate, and the result is that you start to view those around you as bigots because for some reason unknown to you they don’t seem to be buying your argument, then you have everything to fear. This was my point, but you seem to have missed it.
…and I should have added that the fault for your missing my point may have been as much or more with me as with you. I myself am guilty more often than not of failing to communicate clearly.
WHT,
Oil does not give a hoot about your math.
You are an historical illiterate and an imbecile hiding behind your self-declared genius.
You are absolutely correct. I took the personality test, and those are exactly the results I got!
BTW, I am really jazzed because this evening I discovered a way to derive what I thought was a heuristic in modeling the CO2 impulse response curves. This is essentially a model of the IPCC adjustment time. I used a two step process. The first step is maximizing the variance of the sequestering diffusion coefficient, and the second step is applying an uncertainty on the planar spatial position to get rid of the diffusion singularity.
The hits just keep coming. And to think I am not even a climate scientist.
For those keeping score at home, the personality type code for that is ISGI, which stands for Illiterate Self-declared Genius Imbecile.
Here is the work of staggering genius, dedicated to hunter
http://theoilconundrum.blogspot.com/2011/09/derivation-of-maxent-diffusion-applied.html
The simple answer was always there, it just took some digging to get to it.
WHT,
Thanks for proving my point.
Those ‘ignorant geologists’ by the way, are keeping the world awash in the oil you say does not exist.
I love the way you and your fellow bigot, Dr. Pratt, brush off the damage your ilk imposes on independent thought.
Au contraire, I derive models and analyze the data to estimate probability and future availability of said oil. They don’t seem to realize that this is good information for the public to have. Worse, they will purposely obfuscate that information and keep it from the public in ways that the poor climate scientists can only dream about.
Amongst the oilers, they don’t call it peak oil, instead they often use the euphemism “reserve replacement problem”. They are smart enough to know that if they don’t replace it then they can go looking for other work, but they are blindly ignorant to what this means for everyone else. You just don’t find many books written on the subject by geologists, maybe Deffeyes is one.
Dr. Pratt: Oh, come on.
When you are a lowly student and one of the top academic minds in the US — by virtue of being an ivy league Stanford professor as well as one of the wealthiest people on the planet by virtue of his Google connection — is openly conflating your politics with stupidity, then you are behind a genuine serious eight-ball if you have any ambition to succeed at Stanford and elsewhere after graduation while being true to your convictions.
“Those who can’t [articulate their position clearly and convincingly] have everything to fear,” is not going to cut it.
By your reasoning, under Jim Crow the real problem faced by African-Americans was that they could not articulate their positions “clearly and convincingly.”
I’m sorry. You are either disingenuous or incompetent in your understanding of the lay of the land at Stanford and most American universities.
[Dupe. I posted this out of order in the response tree. Sorry.]
Dr. Pratt: And by the way — why in the world is a computer science professor bringing politics into a discussion of object-oriented software development?
Perhaps I’m missing something. Perhaps you can explain, since you are also a Stanford computer science professor.
But my bet is that you can’t. My bet is that you are quite comfortable with a status quo where conservative computer science students have their political convictions ridiculed in class and almost all other students share that ridicule with the professor.
I’ll also bet that you would be upset if the shoe was on the other foot, and liberal students found a conservative professor regularly ridiculing Obama, the Democratic party and the climate change orthodoxy in a Stanford class.
Tell me different. I dare you.
Dr. Pratt: Furthermore, to beat this issue to death, I have gone into my wonderful sensitive open-minded liberal groups and made my case so clearly and convincingly to no one in the these groups had anything to reply with.
So they did the next best thing — they shunned me and in one case actively drove me out with abuse.
I have seen this over and over again. Afterward I realized that if you scratch a liberal you find an authoritarian, often with pleasant manners and a marvelous vocabulary, but still an authoritarian.
If you cross such liberals, you pay.
huxley,
Pratt is just a typical example of what passes for academic excellence today: bigoted, reactionary and insulated.
By your reasoning, under Jim Crow the real problem faced by African-Americans was that they could not articulate their positions “clearly and convincingly.” I’m sorry. You are either disingenuous or incompetent in your understanding of the lay of the land at Stanford and most American universities.
Martin Luther King waged a war with words, expressing himself clearly. His enemies fought back with guns. I gather from your dismissive attitude towards clarity in speech that you would predict that guns make for a more effective weapon than words, and that you would judge as disingenuous those who believe the pen is mightier than the sword.
As long as you can keep your boot on the neck of the writer you have a valid point: it is disingenuous to believe the pen will help the writer stand up under those circumstances.
Furthermore, to beat this issue to death, I have gone into my wonderful sensitive open-minded liberal groups and made my case so clearly and convincingly to no one in the these groups had anything to reply with.
That your “sensitive liberal groups” didn’t beat you to death suggests that you must not have come on as strong to them as you’re doing here. Maybe they weren’t articulate enough to push your buttons the way I seem to have. (Pats self on back.)
You dismiss the efficacy of clear exposition on the ground that it didn’t work for you. That’s like a kazoo player dismissing the power of music to move people.
Dr. Pratt: I did come on somewhat strong there. Sorry.
Considering that you did not witness the interactions with my liberal friends, I don’t see how you can know how clear my exposition was. In any event, are you claiming that all clear and convincing exposition must move people and I was simply deficient in that regard? That sounds both foolish and patronizing.
Returning to this topic, my point stands that a student at Stanford, say, who found his political or scientific convictions constantly mocked by most students and teachers, and wanted to make friends, connections, find a mentor, get good recommendations, and make a career in academia would understandably be fearful of risking a promising career by not getting along with others.
Surely that makes sense. Or do you claim that academia is a jolly, fair, and open-minded place where all opinions, even supporting George Bush or having reservations about climate change, are as equally embraced as skin color?
If you’re interested in answering further back mail, try here, where I tear into your flippant defense of Paul Ehrlich.
PS Like most liberals I know, you do a great job of patting yourself on the back. Keep up the good work.
If you’re interested in answering further back mail, try here, where I tear into your flippant defense of Paul Ehrlich.
I read it back when you wrote it. While I’m sure you can back up your claims of what Ehrlich said by quoting conservative literature, where these sorts of claims about what he might have said can be found in profusion, I’m equally sure you can’t back them up by quoting Ehrlich himself. If you can then I’ll buy your claim that I’m the disingenuous one, if not it would seem you are.
Besides inaccuracy you also seem to have adopted language of the kind one would use to push buttons. I’ll be happy to continue the discussion provided you drop that language. If you don’t know what I’m referring to then we can simply sign off.
ISTJ (1996, age 48) “very strong” scores on all dimensions
PhD Microeconomics, quantitative analysis (econometrics, time series analysis, etc.)
Professor in a liberal arts college
The climate has been warming on average for about the last 10K yrs, including periods of more rapid (Medieval) warming and countervailing (Little Ice Age) cooling. I am highly skeptical of IPCC / “Team” analysis and forecasts.
At first sight, I thought I’d score INTP, but in fact scored ENTJ. The “intuitive” stands out.
• slightly expressed extravert
• distinctly expressed intuitive personality
• slightly expressed thinking personality
• slightly expressed judging personality
I have a BSc (Economics), I’ve worked mainly as an economic policy adviser, secondarily in voluntary work helping people to practise Vipassana meditation, and in various other fields, including journalism and building work. And I’ve danced on stage and tv.
From about 1989 I took an interest in AGW as a possibly serious problem which deserved attention, and have become increasingly skeptical the more I’ve learned.
INTP
BS Physics, MS Electrical/Computer Engineering
The last one of these that I took also was INTP, the T and P. Another pop pysch site has INTP as the Engineer, and INTJ as the Strategist.
http://www.mypersonality.info/personality-types/intp/
http://www.mypersonality.info/personality-types/intj/
Was a lukewarmer when I relied on what I’d been reading in SciAm and the rest of the press, went from believer to skeptic to scoffer in the space of a month or so in early 2007 when I started reading for myself.
If the climate is so unstable, with positive feedbacks so potentially dominant, where’s the evidence of that instability over the Phanerozoic? Dick Alley thinks the Permian-Triassic Extinction fits, and there ‘just isn’t anything else’, but the P-T is also coincident with a galactic cosmic ray minimum, and unlike CO2 and warming oceans, there’s no chance the warming planet caused more supernovas in the distant past.
While an infinite number of climate modelers coding up general circulation models will eventually get it right, I don’t see the validations that would lead me to believe they’ve managed to make that milestone just yet.
INTJ
M.App.Sc
Consultant Geologist (> 30 years)
CH (Chief Hydrologist) has 75% convinced me that climate is chaotic, non-linear with unknown thresholds to strange attractors, and only describable (poorly) within a probability matrix
This is quite a step, since it requires junking “the past is the key to the present”: an absolute horror to geologists. Mind you, a constantly and unpredictably changing probability matrix is a very poor replacement, so I’m not a true believer
These psych profiles are all the superficial same – they present questions as mutually exclusive Yes/No choices (also a common marketing ploy), when both answers may be applicable. Example: do you empathise with other people ? The definition of empathy is avoided – my real answer is Yes, I understand other people’s motives quite easily, and No, I rarely agree with them. I always want a c) option – NONE of the above
None of which changes my long-standing view that Jung was an absolute nutter :)
I’m another INFJ.
Qualitative analysis of your type formula
You are:
moderately expressed introvert
distinctively expressed intuitive personality
moderately expressed feeling personality
slightly expressed judging personality
INTJ
M.S. Mathematics
Quality Engineer / Statistics (retired)
Skeptic (redundant to statistical education/experience)
Having taken the test, I see I’m apparently an INTJ too, Judith.
o Highest degree – Mphil in education
o Current occupation: Online tutor after a career in IT.
o Skeptical (agnostic) re: climate change
My general observation is that the paper is offering advice for the Machiavellian manipulation of the masses, but no way are the masses going to buy it. See, it all depends whether (orthodox) climate science is actually correct. It doesn’t matter a toss how climate scientists spin things.
Science should be a universal language–like mathematics–that transcends the culture, social skills, predilections and idiosyccrasies of the individual: “the individual scientist as well as the community of fellow professionals rely implicitly on the researcher embracing the habit of truthfulness, a main pillar of the ethos of science. Failure to adhere to the twin imperatives of candor and integrity will be adjudged intolerable and, by virtue of science’s self-policing mechanisms, rendered the exception to the rule.” ~Steven Shapin, “Trust, Honesty, and the Authority of Science”
Forgot this bit from the test:
o distinctively expressed introvert
o distinctively expressed intuitive personality
o moderately expressed thinking personality
o moderately expressed judging personality
M-B is astrology. Being married to a scientist and observing the type for many years, the one thing I have learn’t is that scientists are a lot more gullible than the general public.
They may be better spellers and type-checkers though.
Your Type is
INTJ
I’ve been a electronics tech, a chemist, and currently a programmer.
Odd that the people doing the “study” include themselves as “climate scientists”.
Is the some kind of Warhol world where everyone is a climate scientist for 15 minutes ?
Where do I get my cheque ?
Where do I get the extra prolixity to pad my sentences out ?
What if I acidentally disclose my data ?
Keirsey’s analysis of the INTJ (“Mastermind”) – see http://keirsey.com/4temps/mastermind.asp
“All Rationals are good at planning operations, but Masterminds are head and shoulders above all the rest in contingency planning. Complex operations involve many steps or stages, one following another in a necessary progression, and Masterminds are naturally able to grasp how each one leads to the next, and to prepare alternatives for difficulties that are likely to arise any step of the way. Trying to anticipate every contingency, Masterminds never set off on their current project without a Plan A firmly in mind, but they are always prepared to switch to Plan B or C or D if need be.
“Masterminds are rare, comprising no more than one to two percent of the population, and they are rarely encountered outside their office, factory, school, or laboratory. Although they are highly capable leaders, Masterminds are not at all eager to take command, preferring to stay in the background until others demonstrate their inability to lead. Once they take charge, however, they are thoroughgoing pragmatists. Masterminds are certain that efficiency is indispensable in a well-run organization, and if they encounter inefficiency — any waste of human and material resources — they are quick to realign operations and reassign personnel. Masterminds do not feel bound by established rules and procedures, and traditional authority does not impress them, nor do slogans or catchwords. Only ideas that make sense to them are adopted; those that don’t, aren’t, no matter who thought of them. Remember, their aim is always maximum efficiency.
“In their careers, Masterminds usually rise to positions of responsibility, for they work long and hard and are dedicated in their pursuit of goals, sparing neither their own time and effort nor that of their colleagues and employees. Problem-solving is highly stimulating to Masterminds, who love responding to tangled systems that require careful sorting out. Ordinarily, they verbalize the positive and avoid comments of a negative nature; they are more interested in moving an organization forward than dwelling on mistakes of the past.
“Masterminds tend to be much more definite and self-confident than other Rationals, having usually developed a very strong will. Decisions come easily to them; in fact, they can hardly rest until they have things settled and decided. But before they decide anything, they must do the research. Masterminds are highly theoretical, but they insist on looking at all available data before they embrace an idea, and they are suspicious of any statement that is based on shoddy research, or that is not checked against reality.”
Note the bits I’ve bolded. Interesting that they seem to be so well-represented here.
We call them Mindomasts so as not to demoralize others
I scored INTJ
with 22, 12, 62, 56 % for INTJ respectively
* slightly expressed introvert
* slightly expressed intuitive personality
* distinctively expressed thinking personality
* moderately expressed judging personality
Rational, Mastermind
PhD in P-Chem
COO of an engineering coatings company, formerly director of research and development (still active in this area and is my second hat) with a healthy dose of quality control management
I am unconvinced CO2 is the main driver to our changing climate. CO2 is a player but ‘how much’ is the question for me. My gut tells me not as much as advertised by the IPCC… the jury is still out.
“All Rationals are good at planning operations, but Masterminds are head and shoulders above all the rest in contingency planning. Complex operations involve many steps or stages, one following another in a necessary progression, and Masterminds are naturally able to grasp how each one leads to the next, and to prepare alternatives for difficulties that are likely to arise any step of the way. Trying to anticipate every contingency, Masterminds never set off on their current project without a Plan A firmly in mind, but they are always prepared to switch to Plan B or C or D if need be.”
“Masterminds tend to be much more definite and self-confident than other Rationals, having usually developed a very strong will. Decisions come easily to them; in fact, they can hardly rest until they have things settled and decided. But before they decide anything, they must do the research. Masterminds are highly theoretical, but they insist on looking at all available data before they embrace an idea, and they are suspicious of any statement that is based on shoddy research, or that is not checked against reality.”
I find both of these descriptions fit well with what I do currently and how I view climate science
The odds of so many INTJ’s being a coincidence are extremely small.
I’m a firm believer in the starkly funny interpretation of psychological quizzes, astrology and palmistry, though I’m not much of a believer in the interpretations themselves.
INTJ – You gain energy by ignoring or privately deprecating what others tell you; you prefer to get information by making it up instead of believing what you see if you even looked; you make decisions based on what you think will most advantage you; you prefer to pigeonhole people and their ideas than to understand from their point of view.
I’m an ENTJ, so I get my energy from doing all the above out loud. ;)
Noone is suggesting that these tests are giving us random noise. The question is whether someone who reports being J on a personality inventory actually behaves that way in real life.
I think there may have been a question a bit like “Do you prefer to have matters settled as opposed to left open?”
I must answer Yes, for it is my preference, and would no doubt bring me great happiness, if I ever got around to making up my mind.:)
Alex (???J)
Subject: “Gosh, am I a J or a P? Maybe I’m a J. No wait, that can’t be right, I must be a P. Or not. So am I a J or a P? Maybe I’m both?”
Experimenter: “I’ll put P.”
Subject: “Does that make you a J?”
Does that “Climate Scientist” personality cause dogmatism?
See: Professor Nir Shaviv Advises Grad Students To Stay Away From Global Warming
Shaviv further observes:
For the current evidence of GRL “peer review” see
Getting GRLed
Contrast the More Hypocrisy from the Team>treatment of Trenberth received.
INTJ
BS in Chemistry
Working in Nuclear Medicine
And I am both sceptical and convinced with respect to climate change.
Which means I am conservative with respect to the meaning of the word sceptical.
Personality type: ISTJ
The one word that best describes Inspectors is superdependable. Whether at home or at work, Inspectors are extraordinarily persevering and dutiful, particularly when it comes to keeping an eye on the people and products they are responsible for. In their quiet way, Inspectors see to it that rules are followed, laws are respected, and standards are upheld.
Inspectors (as much as ten percent of the general population) are the true guardians of institutions. They are patient with their work and with the procedures within an institution, although not always with the unauthorized behavior of some people in that institution. Responsible to the core, Inspectors like it when people know their duties, follow the guidelines, and operate within the rules. For their part, Inspectors will see to it that goods are examined and schedules are kept, that resources will be up to standards and delivered when and where they are supposed to be. And they would prefer that everyone be this dependable. Inspectors can be hard-nosed about the need for following the rules in the workplace, and do not hesitate to report irregularities to the proper authorities. Because of this they are often misjudged as being hard-hearted, or as having ice in their veins, for people fail to see their good intentions and their vulnerability to criticism…
Highest degree: M.B.A. ( top 10 school )
Profession: “Buy side” ( i.e., not broker/banker) salaried investment research (with multi-factor quantitative valuation model design and construction approach)
Opinion: Skeptical of IPCC
INTJ
Ph. D.
scientist
convinced
This is the Rational Mastermind category.
I am only distinctly expressed in Judging, moderate in others.
They say only 2% of the population is INTJ, so this site attracts us.
personality type: INTJ
highest degree: MS Engineering Science
profession: Computer Programmer
skeptical
INTP
BSc Geology
13 years hydrogeology
10 years petroleum geology
Skeptic
I found a lot of the personality descriptions fairly representative of me, however, I quite often wanted a 3 rd option to the binary yes/ no
I wonder if that is why I ended up with the P rather than a J
I have been reading the blog since the foundation but rarely post. I do however greatly enjoy reading JC’s posts and some of the comments
As a regular CE lurker and with some 73 years behind me that has led to developing a high level of cynicism on the motives that drive human behavior, I read this’
“Ph.D. climate scientists also exhibited a strong preference for Judging on the final dichotomy (Fig. 1). This suggests that on average, climate change researchers will prefer to reach a decision or come to closure and ‘move on’ to the next step more quickly than the general population. The general population, with a higher proportion of Perceivers, is more likely to see room for doubt, or want to take more time to explore possible alternatives, especially when outcomes are not likely to be positive.”
I figure that if large sums of OPM are handed to me and I am not at all held accountable at any level for generating anything of long term use to the providers of the OPM then I also would hardly be bothered to follow up with any careful backups on any research that i did. Much more exciting to move onto the next current and fashionable slant on some other interesting aspect of the subject and collect the generous monetary handouts in passing.
A psychological profile will no doubt adapt over time to fit the circumstances around the very comfortable, well funded climate scientist’s academic life style.
The general population on the other hand has to actually earn it’s own money by a real time demonstration of their performance in the workplace or they find that they are not needed and so no work and no money.
So the “general population” does it’s homework with care and taking doubt into account and explores alternatives particularly when those alternatives may mean spending less of their own money to achieve the same lasting and potentially beneficial results.
The general public’s life style and earning capacity is a darn sight more unstable than any well funded climate scientist so over time so their [ self analysed ] psychological profile will be modified to fit accordingly.
That paper above sounds more like a psychological wank justifying the complete lack of accountability of so much of the publicly funded climate science research and the performance of the climate research institutions and their climate research staff than a genuine reflection of a so called climate scientist’s psychology .
INTJ as well ( and I do not like being a conformist)
Anyone beat 67 88 59 89 ?
MBA, Master Systems Analysis (may date me)
INTJ
PhD – synthetic organic chemistry
Venture Capital – basic science, new business
Sceptic
Personality type ISTJ
BSci(Comp)
Software Engineer
Skeptical (Very)
I still find it hard to take this too seriously, not because of the Myers-Briggs inventory,which may or may not be useful, but because the study in Climatic Change was so awful. On the other hand, the responses here are interesting. Almost everyone except about three of us, me included, has a T as the third letter. I came out an INFJ. This tells me that I let emotions influence the way I react, in contrast with the vast majority of people who participate in this blog, whose views and comments are dictated entirely by evidence, with no tendency to think or say anything based on emotion.
Who would’ve thunk it?
I love T’s. I get chills up and down my spine just listening to Spock reason things out on Star Trek.
I hate F’s, they’re so annoying, basing everything on emotion instead of thinking. You have to love reasonable people, how else can you decide if not rationally?
I so envy the ability of T’s to spot logical fallacies. And computers, oh my, the essence of T-ness. No computer ever added two and two in anger, what better reason could there be to own a computer?
I want to be a T. I will be a T.
ENFP. There! I’ve confessed.
But these traits don’t just bear on our communication with each other. More importantly, they shape our approach to solving problems. And for the major world problems, we need to bring a full diversity of approaches to bear. More on my blog at http://www.livingontherealworld.org/?p=407
Hi Bill interesting post. I agree that the problem solving angle is more interesting than the communication angle.
As a mild INFP, I believe the most important thing seen here is that Climate Scientists are different from the rest of us in a way F. Scott Fitzgerald would recognize immediately: superficially if at all.
They are no less likely towards being error free than anyone else.
They are no less likely, and possibly more, to be caught up in group think and noble cause corruption.
BS
Project Mgt.
Logistics
Finance
I came out as an ESTJ. I am a mechanical engineer working on helicopter rotor systems (the AH-64 Apache). And results didn’t really surprise me. The strength of numbers was 22, 6, 50. and 39 respectively, which were:
slightly expressed extravert
slightly expressed sensing personality
moderately expressed thinking personality
moderately expressed judging personality.
Though I agree, they could change by taking the test another time, and in a slightly different frame of mind, for example if it was a bad day at work.
I wonder how Liberals vs. Democrats vs. Republicans would score . . . gee, maybe I shouldn’t have asked this . . . ! :-)
No idea how credible the source is:
The INT’s (INTJ and INTP) are strongly Republican and Independent over Democrat.
The INF’s (INFJ and INFP) are strongly Democrat and Independent over Republican.
The NTP’s (INTP and ENTP) are more strongly Independent than any of the other 16 MBTI types.
The TJ’s (INTJ, ENTJ, ISTJ, ESTJ) are more strongly Republican than any of the other 16 MBTI types.
http://thethinkerblog.com/?p=173
A more extensive analysis:
http://www.politicaltypes.com/content/view/24/56/
The presumptions in that link re political affiliations etc are dripping with the typical arrogant disdain of the “enlightened.” (As oppposed to their perception of the benighted.) The link makes the typical mistake re republicans in equating these to “social conservatives” whereas that particular segment is the minority of republican voters and almost entirely regional (primarily the southeast and some of the midwest, aka the bible belt, and even population studies show that this can’t possibly be the driving force of the GOP due to numbers alone.) And of course it’s also shrinking. It’s not the “republican base.”
The majority of republican voters are better described as social liberals and fiscal conservatives. Social conservatives are loud and stupid and make for great TV newscast fodder which juxtaposes right thinking modern people with gaptoothed bible thumping imbeciles. It’s a great deal easier to portray these as “typical republicans” rather than do the reporting gig for real. Especially when said imbeciles are clearly wrong or otherwise over the top e.g.”that dang abortionist had it comin’ anyway.”
Of course, your (very typical broad brush) perception appears to be that republican equates to bible belt, and nothing, not even data, could convince you otherwise. After all, you beat the political drum quite loudly on every thread herein.
As opposed to the attitude towards climate scientists expressed at length above, which is dripping with the arrogant disdain of the ignorant for the accomplished.
Another memorable phrase applicable to large portions of the thread . . .
That’s hilarious.
Over the past six decades, Republican administrations have seen more debt as a % of GDP, and more spending as a % or revenue than each of the Democratic administrations that preceded or followed. And yes, that include Dick “deficits don’t matter” Cheney – whose ticket they supported. Twice.
Sure – there are many factors that have played into debt ratios, including the makeup of Congress (which, if factored in to the examination of debt to revenue and debt as a % of GDP, still does not = a “Republicans are fiscal conservatives” conclusion) – but the only folks that think that the Republican Party is the part of fiscal conservatism either hasn’t been paying attention, is willfully ignorant, or is simply a Republican toady.
And the “majority” of Republicans are “social liberals?”
Oh, my sides. That’s hilarious. Which of the leading candidates for the Republican nomination for the presidential election is a “social liberal?” Can you elaborate on which aspect of his or her platform is what you’d call “socially liberal?”
For you Robert
:)
Joshua. You’re doing your typical thing and conflating the makeup and stated ideal preferences of the republican voter (as seen in polls) with the candidates they are stuck with choosing from. As usual simple concepts seem beyond your grasp.
I’m INTJ and think all politics stinks – a pox on all their houses.
ditto: INTJ
INTJ here also and I agree
Michael:
INTJ also, and mostly just disappointed. There was a time when politics was inhabited by statesmen, not so much anymore. Politics has become a career instead of a public service. Very sad.
Roy Weiler
Joshua,
Very interesting info. This is to the site, not you, how is iNTp both strongly Republican and Independent over Democrat and are more strongly Independent than any of the other 16 MBTI types.
Is this supposed to be the “teaparty”? ;)
Dont bother Joshua. He got IDJT on the test and is trying to figure out if they dropped the I between the J & T and insulted him or if his browser is messed up and giving him false information
ok that made me laugh :)
Ok…that one was good
Mosher:
LOL as always!!
Roy Weiler
Really mosher (I am unsure when I should cap)?
Is that critical “j” so -imature- for the message that you may want to speak. you want to convince the masses that “there is a blanket effect” of CO2, yet you are bold enough about something you know little about -MBTI astorology- that you mock opposing views?
It is an interesting character development (well, maybe not, considering the aggressive INFJ nature). I was wrong to assume, it will not happen again. You are the INFJ moshpit.
Hope that works out for you.
Best of all.
intrepid.
go join omnologos in the party pooper corner.
And understand. eec was my Favorite.
Joshua,
Always and never are seldom true.
And pigeon holing people, your obsession, is just a way to denigrate and dehumanize those with whom you disagree.
I think ROM has identified the most important trait ‘Climate Scientists” share in common:
“I figure that if large sums of OPM are handed to me and I am not at all held accountable at any level for generating anything of long term use to the providers of the OPM then I also would hardly be bothered to follow up with any careful backups on any research that i did. Much more exciting to move onto the next current and fashionable slant on some other interesting aspect of the subject and collect the generous monetary handouts in passing.
A psychological profile will no doubt adapt over time to fit the circumstances around the very comfortable, well funded climate scientist’s academic life style. ”
I wonder how Bernie Madoff’s profile would fit in with the likes of Gore, Jones or Mann?
After all, Madoff was also a big time democrat and therefore enlightened.
hunter,
WTF?
I merely passed on a (rather poor, I might add) summarization from a rightwing website of a more comprehensive look at the MBI.
As for dispelling your pigeon-holing (could there be a more instructive example than the one you provided above, or perhaps the many comments in this thread by “skeptics” about climate scientists?), the MBI is something that I think is moderately interesting to look at but reflective of not much of anything in particular because many of the questions and answers (for me at least) are pretty ambiguous and fairly arbitrary. And even further, even if the “personality types” were “valid” in the sense of being reproducible and actually descriptive of something about peoples’ personalities, evaluating those personality types in any meaningful sense is entirely subjective.
Oh – and btw, hunter – I took the inventory twice – once returning a INFP (same as you, my brother), and once INTJ. The “I and the N in both runs were “moderately” and “distinctively” expressed, respectively, while the F and the P, and the T and the J were “slightly” expressed.
I have seen better psychological personality testing – they’re all pretty inadequate, IMO, but any that relies on such a simplistic question/answer process at the binary choices of the MBI, IMO, is much too shallow to be of much value.
For explanation talk to Robert:
:)
. .and should have added to the post above, I am a skeptic on CAGW, thinking the sun and nature plays a FAR bigger role than C02 ever will. . And for the similar personalities, I though the list of my particular type was, well, interesting to say the least . . :
Bruce Willis, Sandra Day O’Connor, George W. Bush, Mark Anthony
I just couldn’t resist taking it a second time, tried to go slower through the questions and think about them a bit more before answering. My scoring did change slightly: this time it was ENTJ.
When I took it about an hour ago, the score was ESTJ, though the ‘S’ was only a score of 6. So it didn’t really surprise me to the ‘S switch to an ‘N’, yet the strength of the ‘N’ was still somewhat low, at 19.
Interesting to see that a lot (but now all) engineering/scientist types score as introverts ( I am a bit more extroverted ). The T and J also fit me.
ESTJ MS EE
i’ve been boiled down to 8 letters.
INTJ DDS
I can do mine in 7.
i have taken this test 4 times over 20 years and the results have been the same. can’t get rid of those stripes.
ENTJ PhD Chemistry. Put me in the skeptic camp. I have taken the MB test and its variants several times over the past 15 years, usually as a prelude to a corporate kum-by-ya session, I’ve moved from INTJ to ENTJ over that time period. You cant be a shrinking violet and try and to shake things up (Re: my ongoing adventures with the American Chemical Society) at the same time…..
“You cant be a shrinking violet and try and to shake things up (Re: my ongoing adventures with the American Chemical Society)”
Ha… What did you think of Rudy Baums editorial in C&EN a few weeks back… ‘Climate Schizophrenia’? I guess all those speakers in the afternoon session are deniers… heh… he’s so predictable.
John, Rudy’s editorial in C&EN print edition was a toned down version of what he posted on the C&EN Blog, where he showed his arrogant ignorance by trying to ridicule Prof. Nir Shaviv’s presentation as “tin foil hat” science, or words to that effect. It was pathetic.
INTJ PhD Geology. Moderately skeptical. I’m not sure how much of my skepticism comes from my admittedly limited understanding of the science, and how much is a reaction the obvious bad faith of some of the AGW promoters. I am a scientist, but as a non-specialist in the field, I have to rely on a fairly well developed BS detector. I find Watts and McIntyre much more credible than Romm or the RealClimate guys, who come across as used car salesmen.
TomL: nice comment, which aptly describes my own position on the issue. I was neutral until I started reading Real Climate.
ISTJ
I have a degree in Civil Engineering.
It was always obvious to me that most people commenting here are “N” type big picture/ideas people.
The things “N” people have problems with is convincing “ST” engineers, accountants, lawyers that their ideas are achievable and cost effective.
I work in an engineering office dominated be ISTJs. amongst ourselves we will be the first to whinge about some new proposal “That won’t work!”. But we are unlikely to complain officailly about it, due to our introverted nature.
ISTJ is the most common MBTI type for males.
My view – ISTJs would read technical articles/blogs(including climate related) at a higher rate than the general puplic but have a lower rate of actually posting than the general public.
ISTJ’s — Great Auditors and Accountants — Somebody has to keep their feet on the grounded in reality and keep the “iNtuitive” in check ;)
– iNF/Tp
Depending on which figures(country/era) you use “STJ” disproportionately account for 27+% of males. We are the hardest to convince any new idea will work. We are also the least likely to be convinced of “think of the poor polar bears” or “what about your children” arguments.
As STJs are often the everyday engineers, accountants, lawyers, police officers, managers, I think we are are an important group the climate scientists must convince.
65% of the public supports a treaty requiring a 90% cut in emissions by 2050.
It would seem to be the climate deniers (10% of the public, half from the Tea Party) who need to rethink their pitch.
69% believe the data’s been fiddled. Would you like milk or sugar with your tea?
=====================
Aw Hell, milk or lemon. Sorry Richard.
==============
You weren’t satisfied publishing this laughable nonsense one time? Rasmussen’s push-polls are a joke.
Robert
Please cite the source for your conclusion. I do not believe it is accurate.
I’ve cited it here multiple times: Google it.
Mason University’s most recent poll, tea party and climate change.
But it depends what day in 2050, Jan 1 or Dec 31?
Robert,
Thanks for the early afternoon joke.
why then you’ve won. why spend a minute talking to the 10%
It is only a few steps from here to Astrology. I know some of you are just having fun, but let’s not take this MB test too seriously. It’s been subject to criticism for a lack of internal validity, as people here have pointed out.
The other problem with such tests is that if you have a target personality profile in mind, it is not too difficult to skew your answers in a particular direction.
From a Blogosphere standpoint, I am afraid that Judith is not an INTJ but an INFP. It make better sense (Will Eshenbacher is one too ;)… my diagnoses…). INFP’s the romantic champions.
Sorry Brad, but I took the test having no idea how to skew it. The chips just fell as they might. And don’t forget, climate science may well be only a few steps from astrology.
Michael,
I’m not saying that everyone skews it, just that it is quite possible to do so if one romanticizes a certain personality type (e.g. good scientists = INTJ).
For example it is easy to determine which way to answer:
“You believe the best decision is one that can be easily changed” to come out as a J.
Or
“You frequently and easily express your feelings and emotions” to come out as an N.
Another big problem with tests like this is that people are rarely accurate observers of their own behavior. This is, in part, why the field of psychotherapy exists. So even if the test is reliable from one test to the next, that doesn’t ensure that it’s accurate (i.e. it lacks construct validity)
Now all this is not to say that these MB tests are useless; one can use them as an exercise in introspection, and that’s great. I advise you to treat the results with an extra large dose of skepticism however.
This question in particular is problematic:
“You trust reason rather than feelings”
Most people are brazenly unaware of the inherent trust they place in feelings and cannot answer this question objectively. What the test actually assesses is one’s *perception* of the trust one places in reason, not the actual amount of trust. How reliably does that indicate their actual decision making process? Not very well I suspect.
Brad,
I think you are right, yet I am not sure it makes much difference. The test may inevitably be asking questions about how we model ourselves, how we wish to see ourselves and that may have a perverse effect on how we actually behave.
Wishing to be rational, to be perceived and perceive ourselves as rational, we may give the rational answer both to the questionaire and in other circumstances. This may lead to making decisions based on what we think we ought to think. Providing we are consistent the test will still characterise how we impact the world even if we act in spite of ourselves.
FWIW I answered as an INFJ, so I cannot exclude the possibility that I am an INTJ in deep denial. :)
Alex
I think you’re probably right for a lot of cases, but it doesn’t necessarily shake out that way for the majority of people (i.e. people may completely ignore their self-perceptions when making actual decisions that matter).
That makes this a fairly unreliable metric, the correlation between perceptions of their decision-making and their actual decision making may be negative, as you suggest, but it may also be closer to 0.
A good analogy may be that the MB is like an estimate of CO2 measurements based on the opinions of what laypeople think CO2 levels are. Useful data in some respects, but nothing to hang your hat on.
Brad,
I don’t disagree but may not share your reasoning.
I am reminded of the flip side of a single by “The Nice” (Keith Emerson) from the 60s titled “Happy Freuds”
“Here’s to all those people
Who know themselves; (They really know themselves.)
They look into a mirror and
They know themselves. (They really know themselves.)
I will build them
A mirror they can see themselves
As other people see them!
Perhaps a bit irrelevent but I still share their sort of irreverence for the concept that we know ourselves all that well.
It is my prejudice that we who have the strongest tendencies towards stark ideological positions are most tempted to act according to belief over need.
I can have no idea as to how we really make decisions, they are judgments and may come from a sense of what is right whatever that means.
Alex
I tend to classify personality tests with horoscopes. Entertaining at times, but not terribly informative. As little as we understand the climate, or economics, we understand the workings of the human mind even less.
That being said:
INTJ
J.D.
Lawyer
Skeptic
INFJ
BSEE
CTO (head geek) of an engineering software company
lukewarmer (get the science, reckon the IPCC is wrong.)
INTJ
PhD (Applied Science)
Engineering
Very Skeptical
Reasons for my skepticism:
1) Past: http://bit.ly/ocY95R
2) Present: http://bit.ly/pMHO76
I accept the temperature data, but the global warming rate is only 0.06 deg C per decade, not IPCC’s about 0.2 deg C per decade.
But Girma, you have to remember the rules changed. Now we have to have 17 year trends not 15 and not 10 years. See what a difference that makes.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vsh/from:1994/trend/plot/hadsst2sh/from:1994/trend/plot/hadcrut3vsh/from:1996/trend/plot/hadsst2sh/from:1996/trend
As the global warming rate is 0.06 deg C per decade, not 0.2 deg C per decade, IPCC’s climate sensitivity of about 3 deg C should be 0.9 deg C (=0.06*3/0.2).
Professor Henrik Svensmark
http://bit.ly/nmuiwf
The following suggests itself as an alternative to the hypothesis considered here: 1. Humans are social animals. 2. As such, members of our species have been under intense selection to manipulate others for their own benefit and to avoid manipulation by others for theirs.This has been going on for millenia, since before we were human. 3. The general public may be scientifically illiterate. But like all humans, they are very good at detecting a con. 4. The reasons by which Joe Sixpack (JS) concludes that he is being scammed are for the most part independent of scientific argument and evdence, but instead revolve around the question of who benefits. 5 Benefits can be tangible – $$$, power, etc. – or less so – self-esteem. Regardless, JS has an inborn sense of when self-interest is at work, particularly when it comes at his expense. 6. When the stakes are large – think government funding – the tendancy to form alliances whereby would-be exploiters collaborate to profit a the hoi polloi’s expense is enhanced. 7. Scientists working in other areas and intellectuals generally are largely sympathetic to AGW because they instictively imagine, often without realizing it, that their own status / fortunes are enhanced by ascendancy of the climate science elite. 8. If climate scientists resticted their activities to science and left the application of their ideas to others, this would not be a problem. 9. As long as climate scientists insist upon telling JS what sacrifices he must make, they will be widely regarded as just another interest group pursuing a self-serving agenda.
“The general public may be scientifically illiterate. But like all humans, they are very good at detecting a con. . . .”
Which would be why “climate scientists” are the most trusted group for information about climate change, and 83% of the public believe that global warming is real, and 65% support a 90% emissions cut.
They have clearly detected the climate denier con (surely the plagiarism, papers yanked, and death threats are not helping you). What can you do to win back the public’s trust?
69% believe the data’s been fiddled. Win the trust, and the future with honest analysis.
=============
If you believe Rasmussen. Most pollsters don’t, because their record is awful, and their predictions predictably fail in the direction of their founder’s right-wing views.
Kimmy, 83% of the public believes the global is warming, and 65% support a 90% cut in emissions.
How will deniers recover the trust that’s been destroyed by plagiarism, fraud, scientific incompetence, hysteria and death threats against scientists? That’s the real question.
ENFJ
Chemist
Post Graduate
Healthcare
Skeptic
Has anyone looked at how thise who are Cult members score on this test? And how they compare with ‘climate scientists’?
Just wondered
The true believers ain’t saying much.
You’re saying plenty.
Deniers are gullible when a study tells them what they want to hear . . . this is just another example of that.
The science-minded on this blog have helpfully pointed out how weak this analysis is . . . but I guess real “skepticism” is so foreign to you it doesn’t even register . . .
The science-minded on this blog have helpfully pointed out how weak this analysis is . . .
So this stuff is weak social science voodoo, yet if the likes of Oreskes makes a claim to the effect of social science proof that “deniers” are dimwitted imbeciles, you can’t help but quote this multiple times.
Social science etc is crap unless it supports your preconceived notion, at which point it transmutates into “Science” and the opinion is by a “Scientist.”
Boring. Predictable. And ultimately, Fail.
“So this stuff is weak social science voodoo, yet if the likes of Oreskes makes a claim to the effect of social science proof that “deniers” are dimwitted imbeciles, you can’t help but quote this multiple times.”
So you admit you’re gullible, but fall back on the “everybody does it” fallacy.
Let’s test: show me a study I cited that said deniers were “dimwitted imbeciles.” Or admit you lied/exaggerated. Either one is fine.
“Boring. Predictable. And ultimately, Fail.”
I like it when deniers provide hashtags to their little screeds. ;)
“…show me a study…”
O. K. Robert, I’ll show you a study if that’s what you want. It seems that there’s quite a “horse-race” going on over at another blog for the “top commenter” spot. Since Friday, 23 September, there have been 8 posts to the “Idiot Tracker” blog and a total of ten comments–almost all one to three line mercy-comments. Pathetic really.
Commenter #comments
Tracker (the “Idiot” himself) 2*
Neven 2*
Rattus Norvegicus 1
John 1
Vermeer 1
Anonymous 1
frflyer 1
Lars 1
*Currently tied for “Top Commenter”
Let’s see now, Robert. Over a five-day period and 8 posts your improbable “Idiot Tracker” blog managed to attract ten, mostly trivial, comments. In contrast, this current Climate etc. post has attracted 22 comment from you, alone, in just one single day (with more to come, I suspect). And, of course, this current Climate etc. post has also garnered more than 350 mostly distinguished comments (no, not any of yours in that category, Robert) and counting.
I dunno, Robert, but these numbers aren’t looking good for you–you know what I mean? It’s kinda like the world’s trying to send you a message or something–you know what I mean?
And, oh by the way, I like all those “purty pitchures” on your blog. I mean, like, your choice of blog-decor is always so much more tasteful than that cutsey-wutsey, artsy-fartsy collection of graphic horrors that one finds at shewonk’s hen-house blog, for example. Indeed, Robert, you’ve now got the best “purty pitchures” to be found on the whole loser-greenshirt blog-scene. Not quite up to greenfyre’s best, I’ve gotta say. But ol’ greenfyre’s barf-bag blog flat-lined a few months ago, so he’s not offering much competition now-a-days–you know what I mean?
O. K. Robert, there’s your study. Happy now?
INTJ
BA Maths
Gardener
Sceptical
INTP
Ph.D Geology
Travel organiser
Skeptical
ISTP (Very strong I,T, weak S,P)
PhD (Maths), academic.
Unapologetic sceptic.
Happy to see myself in the same pigeonhole as Steve Mc and diametrically opposite climate reserchers!
McI and Mosher – joke as much as you like, there’s enough material in these comments to establish a new cult.
I hope it’s an American thing indeed. Eighty eight years of MB, almost as old as Arrhenius’ paper!!
yes, the INTJ cult :)
we dont need your permission to joke. party pooper.
ISTJ very strong ITJ (80-90) but only just S
Power Station engineer and slightly lukewarmer sceptic
as mentioned above, i’m apparently an INTJ
11, 50, 62, 83.
Some of the analyses of the personality types resonate.
I’m a BSc (hons) in MIcrobilogy with ten years in various levels of industry.
Plannig to do a PhD in chemical engineering early next year.
Oh, and i’m more of a lukewarmer now.
INTJ (22, 12, 50, 40)
PhD in analytical geochemistry
Work as a consulting engineer
Very sceptical of the IPCC numbers – I would consider myself as being at the bottom end of the lukewarmers (if asked to bet, I’d put CO2 sensitivity at 0.5 +/- 0.5 deg C)
Ian – we almost tied:
INTJ (22, 12, 50, 38)
MS Chem. Eng.
Work as chem. eng., later business manager, later consultant
very skeptical of IPCC numbers and process (CS = 1.0 +/- 0.5C)
Max
Wow, I scored BS*
Career in IPCC or writing fiction
ok – so Im a skeptic
One question (warning, irony alert) – I notice that Christina Olex’s affiliation is described as “The Point” and on the APECS website it says Chris founded The Point in order to become an independent Corporate Trainer and Facilitator specializing in team and personal development and has a BA degree. C. Susan Weiler and Jason K. Keller have no expertise in the area of Personality type assessment, BUT are involved in climate science. Is this the first article discussed on this blog with TOO MANY climate scientists involved!!
In any case, it makes interesting reading, so again Judith, thanks for identifying something I would’ve completely missed.
“Effectively communicating the complexity of climate change to the public is an important goal for the climate change research community, particularly for those of us who receive public funds.”
1 Effective communication is code for no one believes the nonsense we are spouting so to get our message across we must spout out more nonsense.
2 As the climate is constantly changing relative to the age of the planet what requires to be communicated?
3 Using the c words, climate change, in lieu of dangerous man made global warming due to CO2 emissions also cannot be communicated because people are not fools.
My humble suggestion would be to compare and contrast climate science with stamp collecting. I think the Philatelists would win hands down on all counts that determine how a professional should act.
“Effectively communicating the complexity of climate change to the public” sounds like informing people on issues that they should know about, including where they can find more information TO MAKE UP THEIR OWN MINDS.
Being dogmatic about “it isn’t happening so don’t bother their pretty little heads with this science nonsense” sounds irresponsible. Just a thought.
“Effective communication is code for . . .”
If you think you’re receiving coded messages via the web, it may be time to see the doctor about a new medication.
I went to see Philiscus, who lives by the wall, who said he’d just seen Robert.
============
@Robert
You can’t get funnier than that.
INTJ BA (Hons) Teacher/Vice Principal ,reader,writer, tree planter.
Sceptic.
Well it turns out I’m an ENTJ, I’m quite surprised about the J part.
My highest qualification is an MSc in Environmental Science, I would say I’m extremely sceptical over projections for the next 20 years which result in warming multiples of that measured over the past 300 years. So the recent past is extremely important to me in terms of assessing the likelihood of events for the near future.
Forgot to add my occupation – environmental consultant working mainly with heavy industry looking at process efficiency and energy reduction.
ooops Who can’t spell! ‘Skeptic.’Freudian slip:-(
Easy to convince AGW is real and immediate action is required.
*NF* members of the public – Even if *NF*s are not convinced of AGW they will go for the “We should still reduce pollution and reduce our reliance on fossil fuels” The fact that not all pollution causes AGW doesn’t seem to matter. They are the ones that fall for the chimneys emitting black smoke.
Hard to convince AGW is real and immediate action is required
ISTJs and ESTJs members of the public – They need to see the facts. Every time there is a cold winter they will less likley to be convinced by AGW. The only way to convince ISTJs and ESTJs members of the public is for it to get hot. (27+ % of males are *STJs)
ESFJ and ISFJ members of the public – They are the nurses and carers of the world. A *SFJ nurse is likely to be good at caring for patients and focus on the day to day caring. A *NF* nurse will probably focus on the big picture (how can we fix the health care system?). Whether they believe in AGW or not, they will care more about the impacts on themselves & family(rising costs of fuel, electricity and potential loss of employment) to make them anti Carbon Tax. (35+% of females are *SFJs)
*STJs males and *SFJs females are two of the most common MBTI types among the general public, but can also be the most stubborn.
I note the paper offers many suggestions how to communicate AGW to the general public.
As an ISTJ member of the general public my suggestion is to provide better facts with less uncertainties.
Example -Climate scientist says ice core samples indicate its never been hotter but Skeptical scientist says it was hotter when vikings lived Greenland in the MWP. Two opposing facts both with uncertainties – I make my judgement on facts and choose the vikings. – I then make judgement that all ice cores are BS
ESTJ
BSc Computation
39 year career in information technology (I’ve done just about everything)
34 year interest in lower atmosphere physics (I’m a soaring pilot)
Convinced of the physics, contemptuous of the IPCC interpretation
INTJ, PhD Biomedical enginnering & post-grad medicine. Retired experimental cardiologist. Believes that CO2 has physical influence on climate but is highly sceptical of run-away feedback.
I think the problem lies in other psychological factors. Authoritarianism, insecurity and self deception.
INTJ (22,50, 50,1) BA , retired, last position was commercial and industrial refrigeration design. My interest in anthropology led to my skepticism of the IPCC numbers and projections. I was a true believer up to the denial of past climate changes. When the IPCC minions attempted to minimize and deny historically documented periods such as the Medieval warm period, the Roman Warm period and the Minoan warm periods it raised the BS flag in my mind.
I do believe that civilization does play a part in the current warming however I feel that most of it is due to the changes in albedo and the urban heat island effect rather than the increase in atmospheric CO2. Anyone who has ever rode a motorcycle into the city on a cool morning can attest to the UHI, no degree or fancy instrumentation is needed.
INTJ – maths, stats, PhD ecosystem dynamics
interesting mastermind group here
so according to this paper it is pointless to point out errors to a climate scientist
one can only steer them to a new vision, like ending poverty or something
I’m stuck by the number of introverts amongst the denizens. I wonder if this is a feature of science or (more likely IMO) an indication of the type of individual that prefers to communicate via internet blogs rather than face ot face? Not that I’m living up to my judgemental characteristics!
I think introverted/extroverted isn’t the common use meaning. As I understand it introverted is a descriptor of how the mind works; the introverted mind starts out with a model and makes sense of the world internally and external data is then fitted to the model. In extroverted the inner mental model is created wholesale from the external data.
Anyway this is a paraphrase of stuff I read ages back re INFJ’s and I could be wrong. You may want to read up on it. Either way the introverted thing doesn’t equate to “shy.”
“the introverted mind starts out with a model and makes sense of the world internally and external data is then fitted to the model.”
What you are describing is denialism, where facts and data are forced to submit to an ideologically predetermined conclusion.
Introversion is something else.
An example of introverted/extroverted mental models concerns the perception of time.
INFJ’s have to learn the notion of meetings being pushed up or pushed back. When a co-worker tells me a meeting is pushed up from 2PM does this mean “up” is a higher number, say 4PM? I always have to ask what up or back means. Is it earlier or later?
The explanation I read somewhere is that the up and back bit is where the “E” types envision time as in a calendar stack where “up” is a piece of the stack seen prior to the original which they then equate to earlier. A calendar stack is an external “learned” model. To the INFJ the notion that “up” is “earlier” is simply wrong. It makes no sense.
Despite knowing the explanation, when I hear up or back it takes a lot of extra clocks to translate this to what the speaker probably intends. It’s certainly not clear at all.
I read that one test between I or E is where the subject is asked to stand and hold out his/her arms straight, then s/he is asked about time. E types tend to see time start as at the left hand going to the right. I types tend to see time as ahead of them and the past behind them and the arm positions are immaterial. I don’t know how valid the test is, but it is interesting.
Another example is in music. People normally speak of tones as high or low, while logically they could be left or right, in or out, or any such convention. I suspect it is because the up/down convention resulted from the earliest days of writing notes on a clef with that convention.
I suspect it is because the up/down convention resulted from the earliest days of writing notes on a clef with that convention.
High and low refer to rates of vibration. People have known for (presumably) thousands of years that increasing the tension in a string, or the stiffness of a vibrating reed, raises the rate of vibration.
When the vibration becomes too fast to see, one might try to imagine some other culture which reverses “high” and “low” for sufficiently high notes, but this would create an inconsistency at the crossover point where the rate of vibration drops to the point of visibility.
Likewise the faster you spin a wheel, the higher the pitch emanating from it. The faster you drag a stick over any kind of sounding board the higher the pitch. There are far too many physical phenomena for which pitch has an evident correlation with speed or rate for any culture to find it natural to think of low notes as being high-pitched.
Could have been fast and slow
Quite right, but not the other way round. High has to go with fast.
D,
The notion of high notes and low ones is in accordance with what can be sensed when singing. The position of the voice box in the throat changes with pitch. It moves down (or towards the chest) for low notes and up (towards the head) for high notes. This can be felt with ones fingers.
To a lessor degree the origin of the tone as apparent to the singer also moves, this is more subjective, but in my case my higher notes do seem to be located in my head and lower ones in my throat.
Alex
If we’d evolved to sloth-like or bat-like creatures who hang upside-down, would we then call a fast-vibrating note a low note because it came from our head?
We may need to visit a lot of planets before finding one that answers this question.
Vaughan,
That is the obvious interpretation so I noted that down is only down if the chest is considered down.
Alex
As a chorister, (and having just come back from rehearsing Bach’s B Minor Mass), I have often wondered at the up/down convention.
“It [the larynx] moves down (or towards the chest) for low notes and up (towards the head) for high notes.” Maybe, but only if you are singing incorrectly. The larynx should bear downwards, not upwards, as the pitch rises. Untrained singers (and those of the Chinese vocal tradition) will try to do it the other way, and it works, but sounds terrible (sorry, Chinese folk), and it’s the first habit to be broken when learning to sing. A bit like learning to lean down the slope when skiing, when the beginner’s instinct is to lean up. Think of a stringed instrument like a guitar – you CAN alter the pitch by twiddling the tuning keys, but that doesn’t mean that’s how you should play it.
And the up/down convention has been around for so long that I find it a bit improbable that its originators should have had the frequency of vibration in mind when choosing it.
It is notable, however, that vocal pitch seems to “obey” gravity, in that singers are far, far more likely to run flat than sharp!
As a soloist (bass going on baritone going on tenor over the decades), I fully agree.
Nice point about gravity!
And the up/down convention has been around for so long that I find it a bit improbable that its originators should have had the frequency of vibration in mind when choosing it.
Unless the convention has been around longer than Stonehenge, you do acoustic scientists an injustice to imply that their choice was arbitrary. We really have no idea at all of the depth of scientific understanding 7,000 years ago. The best scientists aren’t always the best at publishing, sadly.
Moreover it is quite plausible that “the” choice was made repeatedly and independently by multiple civilizations around the globe.
From an early age Is are more likely to prefer reading a book than going to a party. This may give them an edge academically over Es of the same intelligence. Is are also happier working alone than Es, which is likely to be an advantage for researchers.
Es are usually quicker coming up with a solution in conversations. Is like to think things through before answering.
Blogs are a form of communication where Is have time to think through their reply.
I think a E scientist would have the edge over a I scientist in an unscripted face to face debate, but this edge would be gone when debating on blogs.
Conversations just distract me. I hate it when someone explains something verbally to me.
ENTJ – Field Marshal
My score was about the same 25 years ago. I haven’t changed.
BTW, my score changed after two glasses red wine (less judgmental, less introverted).
Add two cognacs and it shifted even more (less thinking, more feeling).
Next morning (very judgmental, very feeling, no thinking at all)
The obsession the AGW believers have with communication reminds me of evangelicals hoping that if they can just get the gospel out effectively then everyone can believe.
Perhaps the AGW community could do like Christians do and get come cable networks going and have singing, preaching and scripture study on air?
They could profile big enviro leaders like Einhorn, the unabomber, Gore, Pol Pot, etc.
They could read the unabomber manifesto, “Earth in the Balance”, and “Time’s Up!”, show reruns of “An Inconvenient Truth” and “The Day After Tomorrow” and hold telethons to get the faithful to put up some money.
They could explain why windmills are the bestest power sources and why grain crops are better used as fuel than food.
They could hold daily hates on the Koch brothers and Sen. Inhoffe.
I am certain that communication strategy would improve things nicely.
Bitter much?
I am ridiculing the idea, Joshua.
Pointing out that many AGW believers write articles about ‘effective communication’ is hardly pigeon holing.
But keep on dodging, brother.
;^)
“Bitter much?”
Clearly you are, yes.
“I am ridiculing the idea”
Well, you’re trying to, but you’re only succeeding in humiliating yourself. :)
Robert,
The kindest response would be to suggest you look in a mirror to look for someone who has humiliated themselves.
Why, are you standing in front of one at the moment?
;)
For you:
:)
Robert,
I was not aware that you are so obsessed as to fantasize how I look in front of mirror.
This makes me very pleased that this site keeps posters anonymous.
I hope you keep your stalking and peeping strictly virtual.
……shudder…….
I nominate that post from hunter to be in the Climate Etc. hall of fame.
Joshua –
Can you show us examples of skeptics exhibiting the same level of concern with communication that the liberal/left/warmist/environmental contingent has shown?
You could be right about the Climate Etc. hall of fame. After all, the statement is certainly true as evidenced by the available data.
Joshua,
How many blog posts has Dr. Curry done here regarding the pressing need the AGW community has in communicating their message?
How many times have we read reports from AGW community memebrs regarding the need to improve communications of the climate risks the believers perceive?
Who just held a 24 hour online video marathon to communicate what about the climate?
So yes, I accept your nomination.
I nominate that post from hunter to be in the Climate Etc. hall of fame.
Pending its Hall of Infamy. ;)
hunter,
I can think of some good reasons why scientists should be concerned about effectively communicating the threat posed by AGW to the public. Firstly, in their professional judgement the threat is very real and needs to be taken seriously so they consider they have a responsibility to try to communicate this to the public and they obviously want this communication to be effective.
Secondly, there are inherent difficulties in such communications, such as the uncertainties involved, the fact that the really serious effects won’t be seen until some time in the future and that the problem is closely linked to human activities which are pretty central to most people’s lives.
Thirdly, as you righty point out, there are a number of people such as Dr Curry who are criticising the way that this comunication has happened up to now, and I think to a certain extent scientists are taking such criticisms seriously and looking at how best to improve.
Finally, there are others who are doing their best to communicate an alternative, contradictory, often superficially plausible and certainly more palatable narrative to the public, so whether they like it or not scientists are caught up in a battle to try to persuade the public that they should be more convinced by their arguments than by those from other sources.
And of course if scientists don’t try to engage with the public they will no doubt be accused of hiding in their “ivory towers” so as usual they can’t win either way.
aa,
As someone who has been involved with some pretty high end marketing schemes, my take is the AGW promoters are simply selling poop and trying to get people to pay the for it as if it were gold.
Their communications, from the get go, have been deceptive and misleading. From Hansen in 1988, to Ehrlich and pals rationalizing lying, to Mann’s deceptions, to the IPCC pushing 2035 for melted glaciers to Climategate (no matter how you believers try to pretend otherwise), it has always been the AGW community getting caught out lying.
Evolution, geology, actual environmentalism, genetic research, all are much harder science, and seem to be able to communicate by simply telling the truth.
AGW promotion has never tried that.
hunter,
I deliberately worded my comment to try to avoid getting into a game of “my side is more honest than your side”, but that’s obviously all you are interested in. Well you would lose by a long margin. The fact is that the vast majority of climate scientists, including Mann and Hansen, call the science as they see it. In fact I would say that Hansen in particular is absolutely scrupulous and honest in his public pronouncements, even if one doesn’t agree with everything he says. I’ve given reasons above why there are particular difficulties in communicating the likely threat from AGW, but most scientists do try to do it honestly and openly. As John Houghton, Phil Jones, Mojib Latif and other have found, it is difficult to do that when there are so many people intent on twisting and distorting anything you say. If “skeptics” want scientists to speak honestly then they should try listening honestly.
Andrew
I do not mean this as a shot, I really do not understand.
Given that climate models were used to predict the conditions (rainfall) in the future, and that these same climate models can not accurately predict rainfall a year into the future–what is the basis of your concerns 20 years from now. Is it still the models results?
Rob,
It’s not taken as a shot ;)
Of course we can’t predict the amount of rainfall next year – the year to year variability is too great. But we can say what our general expectations are based on current trends and we can say whether it is likely to be different from what we would have expected 50 years ago. So in the US for example the expectation would be that compared with 50 years ago there would be an overall increase in precipitation, with heavy downpours in particular more frequent, but in certain areas such as northeast, southwest and southeast the levels are likely to be noticeably lower than in the past. We can also look at things like the observed spring snowmelt dates and see that they are earlier than they used to be, in some places by more than 20 days.
We can also use the models to help us understand how trends are likely to continue in the future, even if they can’t predict, say, how much rain we will get in 2076. And the indications are that we (or rather you) will see an increase in precipitation in the north and a decrease in the south, with (particularly pronounced) increases in both extreme precipitation events and extreme heatwaves. Now none of us has a time machine to see how these projections will pan out but they do largely seem (apart from the northwest) to indicate a continuation of trends which we have seen since the 1950s so ISTM that we should have a certain amount of confidence in them. I certainly don’t see an argument for dismissing them out of hand.
I certainly don’t see an argument for dismissing them out of hand.
I certainly do if they can’t be set to the atmospheric conditions of say 1810 — and leaving them alone entirely with no fudging — let them run for a 100 year cycle and then examine the actual conditions of 1810 to 1910 and determine whether or not they worked.
What I see you (and others) are doing here is substituting the concept of vectors for skill. Vectors are simple enough and one doesn’t need a computer model for that. A paper pad and a slide rule seems pretty cost effective. But outside of a simple vector, none of the models are exhibiting any sort of skill in predicting much of anything.
And what I mean by skill is that hindcast believer (modeling apologists?) claims show some sort of what appears as dubious correlation with a factor and then one can also pick almost any other factor at random (e.g. count of pirates) showing the same thing; there’s no confidence that the model did anything that couldn’t have been done simpler with a slide rule. For attribution one needs something more than vague correlation and vector, one needs more definitive proof that the model was operating correctly, i.e. predicting a trend that actually happened historically that was NOT something that a simple slide rule vector might have shown.
I’m well enough versed in the realities of radiative physics that you needn’t dig deep into the mary poppins bag and whip out the ‘denier’ label for me. I well understand the base trends and I understand that these trends do not require modeling to grasp. What I am saying is that models do not appear to be doing anything beyond basic trend. The upshot is that sure, I’d be happy to dismiss them for now.
I sincerely appreciate your perspective as I have asked this question several times and you are the 1st to respond with any specifics.
I disagree with your conclusion regarding the ability of todays models to accurately predict what you wrote:
“In the US for example the expectation would be that compared with 50 years ago there would be an overall increase in precipitation, with heavy downpours in particular more frequent, but in certain areas such as northeast, southwest and southeast the levels are likely to be noticeably lower than in the past.” Or:
“The US will see an increase in precipitation in the north and a decrease in the south, with (particularly pronounced) increases in both extreme precipitation events and extreme heatwaves.”
I see that Random has replied with several points that I agree with but will not repeat. I will instead try to make it even more simple.
1. Have you scene ANY evidence that the climate models you have relied upon for these longer term predictions have been able to accurately predict similar regional conditions in the nearer term? I have not. They have been no better that random guesses from what I have read. If there is a climate model better than I believe I am open to change my perspective.
2. You point out general conditions that the models show might happen, but I do not see any evidence of a net harm to humanity or the United States in particular. What would lead a reasonable person to believe that the change (if it happens as you describe) is bad for humanity or that actions taken today would impact the perceived problem in a positive way?
aa,
You can try to avoid the elephant in the room all you want. I would if I was having to defend AGW.
But I am not and I am not going to avoid pointing out the pattern of deception AGW promoters have engaged in as a matter of course.
Rob, RE
There are some good analyses of model performance here –
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/27/models-on-and-off-the-catwalk-part-one/
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/03/23/models-on-and-off-the-catwalk-part-two/
The message I get from these is that the models are good in some areas, less so than others (as Gavin has said, all models are wrong, some models are useful) but they seem to do a pretty good job of simulating rainfall levels in most areas, at least good enough to warrant taking the projections seriously and not dismissing them out of hand, although they obviously shouldn’t be taken as gospel truth and we should be aware of the limitations of regional projections
And surely we don’t have to rely totally on the models – we can see what has happened in the past and we have a certain understanding of how weather and climate “work” to be able to make some kind of judgement about the effects of higher temperatures even without models. I mentioned in my previous comment that we can see changes to climate in the US since the mid 20C, I’m not sure why Rob objected to that. The fact that the projections for most areas are a continuation of trends already observed would seem to me to give credence to them. Also it is an oft cited fact that the hottest year in the US in the last century was 1934, well we know what happened then.
I agree with RE, if I understand his point correctly, that if we are talking about broad metrics like global surface temperature for given emissions scenarios then we would do the calculation if not with a slide rule (never been taught to use one myself) then an Excel spreadsheet, although that would still depend on making assumptions of climate sensitivity which are partly based on model outputs. But I think the above and other comparisions show that the models are more skillful than that.
Rob, I will respond separately to your second question.
Rob Starkey: Given that climate models were used to predict the conditions (rainfall) in the future, and that these same climate models can not accurately predict rainfall a year into the future–what is the basis of your concerns 20 years from now.
Sure, Rob. If one year is hard to predict, 20 years must be even harder to predict. Stands to reason.
(Note to casino operators: I saw Rob first so he’s mine for now, capiche? You can have him later.)
Rob, you’re clearly a statistics genius so you should find the following game very much to your taste. We toss a fair coin repeatedly, and when it comes up heads I pay you $2 and when it comes up tails you pay me $1.
Every 20 coin tosses, if you beat me on more than 12 of the last 20 tosses then I pay you an additional $20, putting you even further ahead. Otherwise it’s only fair that you pay me $20.
Want to play?
hunter. In Joshua’s mind ( He’s IDJT) saying that an AGW believer, believed in AGW would be pigeon holing. he’s in charge of all pigeon holes..
Judith applauds, and steven repeats his ad hom not twice, but three times.
Allow me to review for you:
hunter categorizes an entire group – “AGW-believers” as communicating in one style, for one purpose, the same as evangelicals, he suggests that they sing and preach, and analogizes them to the unambomber and Pol Pot, etc.
He ignores that not all “AGW-believers” feel that communication is a key focus, in the least, and that even among those who do, it includes many who feel that way for any variety of reasons.
That’s “pigeon-holing,” – which is what he accused me of doing, merely because I posted a link that examines correlations between political ideology and MBI results.
To sum up. He accused me of pigeon-holing, which I didn’t do, and then proceeds to do so himself, much to your ad-homing delight.
Flap, flap, flap.
=========
Joshua,
You seem to be in charge of mistinterpretting things and you are really good at it.
steven –
Would it be stooping to your level to point out that trained seals also repeat tricks when their masters reward them with applause and laughter?
You’re really proud of that IDJT joke, aren’t you? Will you jump through hoops repeatedly also if Judith exclaims her approval?
I’m sorry, hunter, if I misinterpreted something you said. Would you mind explaining what I misinterpreted?
Joshua,
You’re the bestest at feigned outrage.
As for misinterpreation- the list is amazingly long.
Start with your view that somehow you are the Hodlen Caulfiled of the climate dispute.
Hunter – i never interpreted that I am the Holden Caulfield of the climate dispute, although I will admit that much of what you write, “just kills me.”
So, what’s next on your list? Was there something that you said in this thread that I misinterpreted? If so, I apologize – but could you please explain to me what it was?
And btw, hunter, I am not outraged by you posts where you compare “AGW believers” to Pol Pot and the like.
I find what you post to be quite instructive for displaying the variety of elements that make up the group of “skeptical un-convinced/deniers” that inhabit one side of the climate debate.
One of these days, Juidth will acknowledge the input of people like you, so each time you post that day draws closer. So far from being outraged, I applaud your rhetoric.
And along those lines, I would ask you write yet more of your instructive posts where you “pigeon-hole” the entirety of one side of the debate into a cartoon caricature of evil leftists and fraudulent scientists – but that won’t be necessary.
Just like anticipating weather change in New England, all we”ll need to do is wait a minute.
@hunter You seem to be in charge of mistinterpretting things
Too wise you be, two y’s you missed.
It’s mistyinterprettying I wist.
hunter, where can we buy what you’re drinking? ;)
Joshua, it is not an ad hom. It’s a joke. And yes I like my joke. I liked Monktopus and I didnt see you complaining about that. Let’s face it, you had to laugh, Moshpit knows these things. If you didnt like it, well #Si
#Si think about that
The obsession the AGW believers have with communication reminds me of evangelicals hoping that if they can just get the gospel out effectively then everyone can believe.
They’re antipodal opposites with the same goal.
The “vocal type” AGW believers reckon themselves as being on the right side of the IQ bell curve which as enlightened beings confers upon them the right to shepherd the poor benighted. These people are all over the idea of a meritocracy — which favours the higher IQ types by definition — where those with merit have an unequal voice (i.e. the leaders, for whom the rules may be different.) To them, buying into the narrative is the test by which they can determine if you have sufficient IQ to be in the club. Collection of taxes (redistribution, social equality) to help/educate the benighted is part of their perceived (shepherd) burden. AGW believers skew ‘left’ (in the USA) because all of this fits into a consistent worldview.
Evangelicals wish to enforce a certain (theocratic flavoured) equality wherein all men are equally subservient to their deity. They too are shepherds. Some keep the hubris in check; others skew into the area where they imagine they know what the deity wants (projection.)
Here is another description suite for the MBTI, much more fun:
ENFJ: “Busybody”
Life’s backseat drivers. They seem to know just what’s wrong with everybody else’s life and have a plan to fix it.
INFJ: “Messiah”
Characterized by the burning desire to change the world, which desperately needs everyone to be NF.
ENFP: “Muckraker”
Creator of hype, distortion, and the perversion of media of information to be wallows of mindless emotionalism.
INFP: “Fanatic”
Always searching for an Answer with a capital A. Unlike the INFJ, they are usually openminded enough to realize the current one isn’t good enough after a few years.
ENTJ: “Tyrant”
Knows better than everyone how things should be done and works tirelessly to obtain the power to make it happen that way.
INTJ: “Crackpot”
All facts which don’t fit their theories are just wrong. The more all-encompassing and less applicable to reality the theories, the better.
ENTP: “Frankenstein”
The salvation of the world is to be found in this new nanotronic frannistan, of which he just happens to have an almost-working model…
INTP: “Nerd”
What? you mean people actually talk to each other using mouths and ears instead of keyboards????
ESTJ: “Stuffed Shirt”
No imagination, no flexibility, no common sense, no capacity for tolerance of others with different priorities.
ISTJ: “Bean Counter”
Like the ESTJ but with less vision.
ESFJ: “Gossip”
Like the Busybody, but characterized by the urge to backstab instead of trying to help.
ISFJ: “Sidekick”
Doesn’t need much meaning in life, just a person (or baby or pet or car) to spend all their time ministering to.
ESTP: “Beer Drinker”
Loud, crude, plays team sports, kisses and tells. These are the people beer commercials are made for.
ESFP: “Clown”
Always the class troublemaker, they have no respect for anybody or anything. Good at snide wisecracks.
ISTP: “Assasin”
Hates people, and is good at killing them. Young ISTP’s are good at killing pictures of people in video games.
ISFP: “Snob”
Revels in the elaborate sensations of wine and paintings and music that are completely indistinguishable to ordinary people. Likes flowers.
:)
INTJ: “Crackpot”
All facts which don’t fit their theories are just wrong. The more all-encompassing and less applicable to reality the theories, the better.
:)
INTJ: “Crackpot”
Even before I read intrepid’s version, I had been wondering which personality type was commonest among science crackpots, and had been guessing INTJ.
But for the others, I only had to type
habits of
into the Google search bar and right away two out of its four options were
habits of highly effective people
and
habits of successful people.
Apparently what it takes to be effective and successful is having habits. But then what personality type are those with habits?
After going through intrepid’s list with a fine-toothed comb, I concluded it would have to be XXXX. Sex, drugs, and rock and roll. My former PhD student Andy Bechtolsheim, one of the most effective people I ever met, wore a T-shirt with that logo (S, D & R&R, not XXXX) in his student days.
Pay no attention to those earnest INTJ’s huddled over their eerily glowing 21st century slide rules, or any of the other fifteen for that matter. The most successful people are those who are able to habitually balance all four of these traits.
INFJ: “Messiah”
Characterized by the burning desire to change the world, which desperately needs everyone to be NF.
“We will force you to be Green”
The trick when one has the Messianic tendency is to lean on the empathetic “F” and realise that people will simply hate it. :)
Alex
lol. :^)
…and yet another…
Cat Types
ESFP “The Hedonist”: The social cat. Inside, outside, contact-oriented. Wallows in petting. Lies in the sun on the driveway. Promiscuously affectionate, even with cat-haters. Meows a lot.
ESTP “The Tomcat”: Comes back after three days with scabs on his nose and ears. Fathered too many kittens to count. Will enjoy you while he’s there, but not loyal. With other cats, doesn’t know when to stop “playing”.
ISFP “The Snuggler”: Inside lap kitty. Has a favorite lap, a favorite window sill, but spreads her favors around nonetheless. Warm and loving, but
don’t try to make her do anything. Purrs a lot.
ISTP “The Problem-Solver”: This is the cat that will figure out how to get the giblets out of the bottom of the garbage can without knocking anything over. Appreciates his pleasures but not a glutton. Stand-offish, but will put up with an occasional petting session.
ESTJ “Bossycat”: A cat with attitude. He’ll hiss at a German shepherd, and the dog will back down. Knows his territory. Catches lots of birds to show he cares, since he won’t be openly affectionate.
ESFJ “Mommycat”: Even if kittenless or male, adopts everyone, including her “owners”. Will groom you until you’ve got a rash; will groom other cats until they snap at her and run away.
ISTJ “Mr. Fastidious”: Won’t eat unless the kitchen floor is newly waxed. Will glare at you until you clean his litterbox. Likes to scratch–and it’s the same place over and over, so you’d better get a scratching post right away if you want to keep your furniture.
ISFJ “Spoiled Cat”: Only the best will do. This is the cat in the “Sheba” ads. Will sink into a depression if you forget to trim her claws, or if her coat is marked. Strategic meowing — not for conversation, but to get what she wants.
ENTP “The Great White Hunter”: King of imaginary bug-chasing. He talks a lot–maybe to you, maybe to something only he can see. Likes to be petted, but only for short periods of time; he’s off as soon as the next synapse fires in his brain.
ENTJ “The Little General”: Assumes control of the family and house. He’ll kick you out of his chair and demand half the bed. Doesn’t purr, but glares while being petted as if you’re only doing your duty. Yowls rather than meows.
INTP “The Flake”: Will play with toys, but bored quickly. If you give in, you’ll quickly have a closet full of cat toys he won’t touch any more. He’ll sit, apparently doing nothing, and then be off on a tear. When walking across a room, will suddenly sit down and start grooming himself.
INTJ “The Limit-Setter”: If you have to be around, fine, but he’d prefer that you just showed up once a week to drop off a case of canned food. If you stay home sick, he’ll glare at you, since after all it’s his scheduled day to have the house to himself.
ENFP “The Happy Slob”: Playful cat that will leave food smeared all over the kitchen floor and track litter granules onto the carpet. Favorite game is peek-a-boo. Likes to be petted, but won’t sit still for long.
ENFJ “The Ringleader”: Will organize the other cats into games. When you get home to find the dining room chandelier swinging back and forth, and all the cats are sitting in the living room looking innocent, it was this cat’s idea.
INFP: “The Little Angel”: Will look at you sweetly two seconds after she’s shredded the new curtains. Can’t resist the kitchen counter. Likes some lap time, but only on her terms.
INFJ “Skitty Kitty”: Wants to be affectionate, but never quite overcomes nervousness. “Intrepid” is NOT her middle name. Likes to watch the proceedings from a safe spot, such as the top of the staircase.”
I looked up INTJ but on this page:
http://keirsey.com/4temps/mastermind.asp
It must have taken me a whole sub-second to stop the ex-Russian lady seventh from the left.
Alex
interrrrrrresting
Need I suggest more?
Ooops typo:
It must have taken me a whole sub-second to “spot” the ex-Russian lady …
stopping her would be a irrational. :)
Are you being objective about this, or just positive?
Not to mention the collective.
intrepid
ESTJ: “Stuffed Shirt”
No imagination, no flexibility, no common sense, no capacity for tolerance of others with different priorities.
.
I resemble that remark :-x
ENTJ
Masters in Economics/Statistics
Long retired
Increasingly sceptical
ISTJ (56 25 50 22)
MS engineering
Retired Project Manager
Similar types: Herbert Hoover, Harry Truman, George H. W. Bush, Greta Garbo, Kirk Douglas, Clint Eastwood
I think they really missed it on the last two, at least with regard to their movie personae.
CAGW skeptic, who daily reads Bishop Hill, Lucia, Climate Audit, WUWT, Reference Frame, and usually Lubos and William Briggs. The order is not significant, Just the way they happened to be arranged on my bookmarks.
I sure hope climate scientists are different from the public,because most of the so-called climate scientists are a nasty lot.Their minions are worse.Attack,smear,patronise,jeer,condescend,that’s the summing up of most climate scientists.A cesspool of nastiness,is it the lack of manners?Is it no religion?Perhaps somebody can tell me why the so-called scientists carry on like sneering,jeering egoists?What a filthy environment for young minds.
More projecting than usual on this thread.
Vaughan,
I would suggest that you are a professor emeritus of projection.
Thank you, hunter. I try.
In college I drove blind clients for the State HHS–in between appointments I would read books onto tape and the career based MBTI book was one of them, so I am VERY familiar with it ;-)
I don’t know how much you can generalize climate scientists based on these tests, but it is a nice way to see what your strengths and weaknesses are to think more critically and better identify assumptions that might be worth re-visiting.
ISTJ (close on the S/N)
MS Met/Clim
Numerical Modeling
Skeptic
Dr. Pratt: When it comes to INTJ, it’s not just science crackpots — from your post you are looking into the mirror and, I’d bet, into the faces of a good number of your orthodox colleagues.
One MB web page refers to INTJ as “The Scientist” and according to wiki, “INTJs are generally well-suited for occupations within academia, research, consulting, management, science, engineering, and law.” As I said earlier, I’m not surprised to find a preponderance of INTJs on this blog far beyond random distribution.
This raises a serious objection to the Weiler, Keller, Olex paper which claims that climate scientists are hampered in getting their climate change message across to the public due to MB type differences. As seen on this blog, climate scientists can’t get their message across to people with very similar MB types.
Perhaps the problem is with the message and not the messaging.
This raises a serious objection to the Weiler, Keller, Olex paper which claims that climate scientists are hampered in getting their climate change message across to the public due to MB type differences. As seen on this blog, climate scientists can’t get their message across to people with very similar MB types.
This is an excellent point. WKO should write a follow-up paper pointing out the large number of INTJs on this blog who call themselves skeptics.
But I’m skeptical that the term “skeptic” is sufficiently well defined to be useful. Even though my only post to this blog skeptically objected to the claim by some professional climate scientists that the atmosphere heats the Earth’s surface, as opposed to vice versa (and moreover twice as strongly as does the Sun!), I would guess most people here don’t consider me a climate skeptic in the sense they have in mind.
On the other hand blogs on the other side of the debate like Tamino’s (ironically named) Open Mind do consider me a skeptic, to the extent that Tamino refused to debate me, deleted my main comment on his blog as rubbish, and told me that I should submit my skeptical ideas to peer review instead.
So I submitted what Tamino had deleted to the upcoming annual American Geophysical Union meeting in December and they accepted it for presentation.
This is actually a reasonable outcome. Bloggers on both sides of the climate debate don’t feel licensed to rewrite their side’s views on the subject and so stick to their side’s dogma while flatly rejecting the other side’s. Those doing the actual science don’t have that restriction because they don’t have anyone above them telling them what the dogma is, and can make up their own minds about the science. If some skeptic comes along and points out where the science can be improved, and the argument appears sound, then as in any science the argument stands a good chance of being taken seriously.
Whether the skeptic is an amateur or a professional should be irrelevant, though naturally amateurs often find it harder to get the attention of professionals since there’s no shortage of amateurs with faulty logic, making it a big time sink to sort through all the dreck on the off chance something good might come along.
The J in INTJ should not be taken to mean that all of the science is settled, only some of it. Just as the old generation needs to step aside for the new, the air in your lungs gets used up and needs periodic refreshing, and the less fit species lose out to the more fit ones, so does science need ongoing revision to reflect new information and perspectives. In that regard science is like any other living, breathing, and evolving organism.
haha.. do you own damn science Pratt! I love that you did. Its so silly when the Tamino’s and Steigs of the world challenge guys who love a challenge. doh!
Hey look me up when you get here to SF
I wonder a little which M-B type is the true believer. Over and over again, the true believers come to the conclusion that the messaging must be wrong, because they never consider that the message is wrong, despite being told so, over and over again.
======================
“I wonder a little which M-B type is the true believer”
Take the test and we’ll know.
Take the test and we’ll know.
:)
@kim Over and over again, the true believers come to the conclusion that the messaging must be wrong, because they never consider that the message is wrong, despite being told so, over and over again.
Say what?
INTJ (56,50,62,56)
BA Mathematics
Retired Actuarial Analyst and Computer Systems Development Manager
Skeptic
I took the metric Dr. Curry linked to and arrived at INTJ (56 38 50 1 ). I’ve seen and participated in several personality type classifications and am of the opinion that they limited utility when applied to the person at the time of the classifying.
Five years ago I took the Meyers-Briggs and scored INTP, so apparently I’m only half judgemental! :-) To be more useful the instrument should be taken on a frequent basis, but unfortunately once you’ve take it you’ve got too much prior knowledge to ever again have anything close to an objective assessment.
INT[J|P]
MS Geophysical Engineering
Skeptic
Ian Lea
BSc hons Microbiology
MA public policy
JD
INTP extreme P = procrastinator extreme – vary on the I depending on where my head is
30 yr Police Officer (most are STJ) after a few years in cotton research.
warm but not rabid Skeptic with highly tuned BS detector
INTJ
BSc Sociology
briefly researcher/ teacher in higher ed but since age 27 self-employed as caterer, carer and am now a landlord.
Sceptic.
This thread is amazing.
I simply loved w.m. schaffer’s comment!
ENTJ
B.Sc Electrical Engineering
MBA
Skeptic
Tom Watts
I originally thought only “climate scientists” were to test themselves.
My result?
INTP
B.Ec B. Bus Accounting Grad Dip Computing CPA
Sceptical of pop psych and intelligence tests but member of Mensa anyway
Sceptic of CO2 AGW but still believe humans need to reduce their enviro footprint
INFP or INTP, depending on my mood, I guess. BSEE, local Mensa folks
were dysfunctional so I let that lapse, My issues with authority figures tend to fuel my profound skepticism, and having had a look around inside the Canadian academic feed trough for a few years, I’d rather hang out with realists, who seem to be much less dangerous to my way of life.
As an INTJ I feel it my duty to inform you all that Ted Kaczynski, Hanibal Lecter and Calvin of Calvin and Hobbs, were INTJs. We do have a dark side.
What was Hobbes?
Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.
Frustrated with STFU, Calvin tendencies.
I tried to take that test twice and gave up in frustration both times. Easily half of the questions aren’t yes/no questions, and the ones that are are often vague or ambiguous. I guess I’ll have to go through life not knowing.
Exactly. My answer to half of the questions was “it depends”.
Ok, so that makes you a P. Three to go.
Climate scientists are different(?) from the general public
They are “special”.
ENTJ
. Personality – Type A. Ph.D. in Engineering, Senior Research Consultant. Skeptical.
I took this test a few years ago. INTJ, and it explained a lot to me and I wished I had known about it earlier. Just about to submit PhD, biological sciences. Was inclined to believe the IPCC line in its early days purely from the suspicion that humans could be impacting the planet. Then I decided to have a closer look, a bit before climategate. Evidence inconclusive is now my conclusion!
Judith,
You seem to have developed a penchant for putting question marks in parenthesis, (?) , as in the titles of this and previous postings, even when the syntax would indicate that you should actually saying something positive.
It doesn’t strike me as being grammatically desirable and I’m sure you wouldn’t do this in a scientific paper. So why on this blog? If you think climate scientists either are, or aren’t, different from everyone else, why not say so? Similarly with myths associated with the Easter Islands: if you think they are indeed myths, why not make your feelings clear?
Using question marks like that (?) allows you avoid actually stating your perspective but still making implications; you can always be a moving target, claim plausible deniability, or avoid accountability.
? denotes uncertainty
Joshua eats the punctuation bugger tempterrain picked out of his nose.
OK, that’s over the line, but art insists.
===============
Kim –
You must have missed my (?): it “denotes uncertainty.”
? denotes uncertainty
Are you sure? ;)
Or did you mean that (?) denotes uncertainty? Could we perhaps then use ((?)) for very uncertain?
Joshua is always so helpful, when he is not running to his mommy, to be telling everyone else what they should be doing.
Our own self-appointed Holden Caulfield.
But I think in his inner life, Joshua is pushing many of us over that cliff
Using question marks like ” (?)”
Using question marks like that (?)
tt
Climate scientists are different(?) from the general public
Climate scientists are different ? from the general public
I would say that Judith had several choices here. When we try to figure out why people make choices it is always important to look at the various options
Are Climate scientists different from the general public?
Climate scientists are different from the general public ?
Climate scientists are different(?) from the general public
Climate scientists are different ? from the general public
Looking at the differential meaning of each of these it’s hard to draw anything from the fact that she choose an odd construction.
I suppose she wanted to find a way to emphasize the word “different”.. and perhaps avoid tedious arguments about what she meant by “general public”
Having made that choice, she was force to invent a method of indicating her uncertainty mid sentence. Since a question mark is typically terminal punctuation she choose to enclose it in parenthesis.
I doubt she even went through these conscious thoughts.
She could have done this
Climate scientists are “different” from the general public
but then the IDJT would complain as well.
Also,
dont make the mistake that most freshmen do about style and audience. For example, you would not use science paper style to ask your grandmother for money.
you get a D- today. dont worry class participation is only 5% of your grade.
go sit with the other IDJTs
I have a feeling Mosheri s trying to pigeonhole me in the STFU type :)
na.. I’m just teasing you.. Plus ur a square peg, I’d put you in the square hole not the pigeon hole :)
Eheheh…thanks, usually I’m teased because of my round shape 8o)
Google “OCEAN test”.
Hit 1’s NOTHING to do with Oceanography & Climatology.
Rather: Personality Psychology.
Ran into this test (basted on factor analysis) while contracted by a social sciences university department as an education stat consultant on functional numeracy.
OCEAN test:
http://www.outofservice.com/bigfive/
OCEAN explanation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits
It is heart warming to read the majority of bloggers here with university educating are skeptics.
Yes, AGW is a wrong alarm.
However, it was extremely successful in scaring us all.
I have no fear of AGW. I have extreme fear of the proposed remedies.
As in remedies that seemingly don’t apply to emerging economies or 3/4 of the global population? As in remedies that would almost certainly cripple the western economy and have zero overall effect due to china,india etc making up for any western CO2 output shortfalls as they develop? Those remedies?
I’m not really a skeptic but where it concerns the *current* politics I’m firmly in the denier camp.
If someone were to propose sane policy though such as spaceborne solar I’d have to switch sides.
It is awful that the current politics are insane where the choices are cripple the economy or drill baby drill. Nothing in the middle allowing job growth and viable long term energy solutions.
INTJ, PhD Applied Probability, university lecturer, very low opinion of the AGW Establishment, moderately sceptical.
Coming late to the party but I am apparently one INTJ more :)
*slightly expressed introvert
* moderately expressed intuitive personality
* distinctively expressed thinking personality
* distinctively expressed judging personality
Physicist (theoretical, began with QFT when I was small, hence probably the strong T:))
I call myself denier because I consider that the current paradigm based on naive field averages and bad resolution computer models is hopelessly off tracks.
Being denier doesn’t mean that I don’t believe that temperatures will increase or that dipolar molecules will not emit IR , they will and the former will do so untill the system begins to revert to the next glaciation.
But I deny globally and locally that IPCC’s paradigm can predict something, anything in 100 years and that this prediction could be both accurate and useful. Only probabilities can be predicted and we don’t have the governing equation yet.
And yes I also believe that any approach to the climate which doesn’t start with the local (e.g regional) as opposed to global and with the dynamical (e.g transient) as opposed to statical will fail if it did not fail yet.
Late to the party, but another INTJ
56 38 62 11
BSc(Hons)(Chemistry), BCom (Economics, Mathematical Economics), MBA
Retired (was Regional Technical Director of [very] large software firm – no, not them)
But also have worked as Industrial Chemist, CEO, Modeller (on what were then called supercomputers), Programmer.
Skeptic – might be a skeptical lukewarmer if I didn’t think the fox(es) had been left in charge of the hen-coop(s) at HadCRU, GISS, etc.
Based on this blog, it appears the majority here are skeptics.
Do you agree?
Girma,
97%
We can actually extrapolate some useful information from this personality test. INTJs are the predominate personality type on the blog. The blog agrees at a 97% level to be skeptical. It stands to reason that 97% of all INTJs are skeptical. The best scientists are INTJs. Thus the best climate scientists are INTJs. Therefor 97% of the best climate scientists are skeptical. Now we have that cleared up with the same rigorous adherence to the scientific method as the rest of the polls.
Careful–the use of that type of statisitics will get you a job at the UN
I love your conclusion, but I think there are about 4 leaps of logic(?) in your argument.
But the leaping is what made the trip fun :)
steven,
That of course makes one think of other memorable examples of reasoning:
This is a great clip and very similar lol.
E S T J
1 1 50 33
Engineering
Public Admin
Skeptic or believer?
Steven, you did make me smile!- in particular using 97%
Now lets see if the New york Times will publish it!
Or maybe the National Academy of Sciences.
This is beautiful! I really love the different article. What a great decoration! I think I should try one. If only I had more time.
I think what we need here is a study of the phrenological categorization of climate scientists, skeptics and luke warmers, delineated by political party affiliation, in order to facilitate improved inter-tribal communication regarding the ontological ramifications of uncertainties in global climatic risk assessments, with particular attention to their impact on an antidisestablishmentarianist critique of the climate consensus.
Anybody got a blank grant application form?
Or has it already been done?
Just be sure to publish it as “Towards a Phrenological Categorization of Climate Scientists, Luke Warmers, and Paid Shills of Big Oil…” and your golden.
;-)
Argh! s/your/you’re/
I wanna know what personality type never mistakes those two.
===================
I never do and my english is not that good (not native speaker). I also never mistake its/it’s and others. It’s very logical not to mistake.
I’d rather see a fair and honest exchange on the specific fears of those that are highly worried about AWG and let’s review the real evidence to support those concerns.
Well you’re just no fun at all.
Here is another fun topic..lol
What would the impact be of several million cars powered by hydrogen that emit water vapor. It would seem to increase the water vapor in the lower atmosphere substantially. I have been reading the water vapor threads, but it isn’t I really my area and I am unsure of the net impact.
Burning hydrocarbons already emits a lot of H2O. It ends in the oceans.
Rob,
It will be awhile before we have many hydrogen vehicles here in the US (maybe the bus fleets). The infrastructure doesn’t exist for folks to fill up their cars with hydrogen. CA has bet that plug in (and/or full) EV’s are going to make it this time around in the marketplace. To help make this happen we (financed via DOE and state of CA $) are building up the EV charging stations (infrastructure) around the state. Lots of 220 Volt stations and a few 440 volt systems for faster charging. An example of how we are trying to support the EV market is playing out currently in Chico, CA. The university is getting ready to put in a new parking structure/administrative building. It certainly seems like downtown Chico and the university need more parking. I can understand why some folks might consider the design plan for the battery plug in stations as being unsustainable. http://www.csuchico.edu/fcp/projects/parking.shtml#
…………..
“Several energy-saving features are planned for the office and parking structure project. Up to 10 battery plug-in stations are planned for electric vehicles. The electricity for these recharging stations will be generated by photovoltaic units on the structure’s roof, so users will not incur a cost, nor will the stations increase the campus’s electrical load.” ………..
You might enjoy evaluating the comment above.
A friend of mine works for Department of Transportation. He can’t understand how they (the university/state/etc) don’t AT LEAST charge the users of the charging stations a fee to cover the funds the transportation department currently receive from the states transportation taxes on fuels. Cities also collects sales taxes on transportation fuels so they would also like to get their fair share of this new transportation fuel….. The term “freeloader” came up to describe the approach of giving the energy away for free.
Hopefully, the design to give the electricity away for free will be modified in time to at least provide the infrastructure to be able to collect/allocate charges in the future. I’d hate to think how much it would cost to put this functionality into the charging stations after the fact…………
I think the problem will be more prosaic: Wet streets.
Slick streets. And sidewalks.
And when it is cold, frozen streets and sidewalks.
H2 as a fuel is a loser. It costs energy, is corrosive/reactive and dangerous.
As for Cali wasting money it does not have, taken from tax payers to give away something people should be paying for, well, we are living in an age where political insiders and their families and friends seem to have no problem getting a quick 1/2 billion$ or so of taxpayer funded guarantees to pretend to be ‘green business people’.
So what is giving a way a bit of power at tax payer expense?
My score was INTJ, (I slightly, others moderately).
The Career list started by
Computer Programming, which I have done a lot since around 1970 and also intensively last couple of days
Natural Science, which is the field of my PhD
Natural Science Education, what I have done moderately lecturing several courses of physics.
Engineering, which has also been part of my education as well as career (my chair was at the Helsinki University of Technology and previous employer the Technical Research Center of Finland).
Not too bad.
I have no idea why there are so many*NF* climate scientists(especially ENFJ)
Is it possible that many *NF* are not true climate scientists but only perform research in one area of climate science. Maybe the rules might be that a mammalogist ENFJ who studies the affects of AGW on polar bears is a climate scientist but a mathematician INTJ who assists with climate statistics is not allow to be called a climate scientist.
Wayne,
I came across this summary of ENFJ’s
“The Teachers”
“Extraverted, iNtuitive, Feeling, Judging
ENFJs are the benevolent ‘pedagogues’ of humanity. They have tremendous charisma by which many are drawn into their nurturant tutelage and/or grand schemes. Many ENFJs have tremendous power to manipulate others with their phenomenal interpersonal skills and unique salesmanship. But it’s usually not meant as manipulation — ENFJs generally believe in their dreams, and see themselves as helpers and enablers, which they usually are.
ENFJs are global learners. They see the big picture. The ENFJs focus is expansive. Some can juggle an amazing number of responsibilities or projects simultaneously. Many ENFJs have tremendous entrepreneurial ability.
ENFJ’s are outstanding leaders of groups, both task groups and growth groups. They have the charming characteristic seeming to take for granted that they will be followed, never doubting that people will want to do what they suggest. And more often than not, people do, because this type has unusually charisma. ENFJ’s place a high value on cooperation from others and are most willing to cooperate themselves.
ENFJs know and appreciate people. Like most NFs, (and Feelers in general), they are apt to neglect themselves and their own needs for the needs of others. They have thinner psychological boundaries than most, and are at risk for being hurt or even abused by less sensitive people. ENFJs often take on more of the burdens of others than they can bear.
ENFJ’s place people as being of highest importance and priority. As a result, ENFJ’s may find find themselves feeling responsible for the feelings of others to an extent which places a burden on the relationship………http://www.davidmarkley.com/personality/enfj.htm
Don’t know if this helps any.
I am another INTJ (78 25 50 44)
Highest educational level: Doctorate
Profession: physician, obstetrician-gynecologist
Position on Climate Change: village idiot. I found this website in my quest to figure out if AGW was a valid hypothesis and I have to say it goes into the category of the (many) things I do not know. On the one hand I understand the whole complex dynamic system thesis in regards to the uncertainty monster, but I can also envision the huge dollars at stake from fossil fuel industries and I find it difficult to fade so many professional scientific organizations: 20-odd national and professional societies. If they are wrong, then that’s groupthink on an unprecedented scale. Maybe so, but way beyond the pay grade for a lowly health care professional who is technically trained to get large packages thru small passages, and not much else.
The Economist had an interesting and highly pertinent piece recently on “When elites get it wrong.” An extract:
Why do elites (people who almost by definition are well-informed and practised in important decision-making) get it wrong? A shallow, though correct and often neglected, answer is that judgement is a completely different mental faculty to intelligence or experience. Clever people can analyse an issue forensically but draw the wrong conclusion. Stupid people can do no analysis at all but still arrive at a sound judgement through sheer instinct.
But we need a fuller answer than that, and a persuasive one is proffered by Stephan Shakespeare, the head of YouGov, a polling firm. As well as measuring opinion for a living, Mr Shakespeare is interested in the underlying science of opinion: how humans come to think what they think. Informed by scientific source material, and his own experiences as a pollster, he has begun to espouse what I will call (in anticipation that it gets turned into a Zeitgeist-y book before long) Shakespeare’s Law. This is the theory that humans basically don’t care about being right. We are hard-wired to hold opinions that align ourselves with a crowd (not always the majority crowd, though that is the strongest impulse). We are not hard-wired to form opinions through coldly objective and impersonal analysis. We do not feel much better for having been proven right about something. On the other hand, we receive a dopamine boost when we shift our opinion from a minority view to a majority view.
If you accept Shakespeare’s Law, the flaws in elite thinking are easier to account for. The “crowd” that Mr Shakespeare speaks of does not necessarily denote the public as a whole, but the social network of a given person. The social network of a member of the elite consists of other members of the elite. Journalists, politicians, mandarins and businessmen tend to mix among themselves, not with Everyman. The social (or, more accurately, neurological and psychological) pressure to agree with one’s peers applies even to this tribe of hyper-educated people. They adopt opinions that align themselves with their peers, which in 1981 meant disdain for Mrs Thatcher and in 2001 support for the euro. Opinions that literally make them feel good. Rigorous analysis has little to do with it, even if they sincerely believe otherwise. This lack of rigour means that the opinions carry a strong risk of being wrong. Basic flaws and inconsistencies in their opinion go unexamined because, after all, being right is, whether they realise it or not, not their priority.
Of course Shakespeare’s Law also applies to hoi polloi. Their views are just as moulded by an impulse to belong. But they don’t purport to be all-seeing elders, and they don’t have the levers of power at their finger tips.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/blighty
The “hoi polloi” do indeed have the levers of power at their fingertips in a democracy.
Otherwise I think this analysis has merit. To put this insight to use, however, you need some way to incorporate into your model the usefulness, indeed the necessity, of expertise. Physicians may be swayed by groupthink, but that does not mean you are better off getting your cancer treatment from your mailman. Engineers may be swayed by groupthink, but it is probably better to have one or two of them look over your bridge design before you build it.
While no one is free of the impulse to conformity, I would put that problem in relying on “expert judgement” behind the more pressing one of fake experts, who purport to be knowledgeable about a subject while presenting a thinly veiled appeal to their audience’s prejudices.
I see your point, but Engineers tend to operate on principles of sound physics backed up by a caseload of previous working examples. On the whole they don’t tend to get things like bridges wrong , with the occasional exception such as the Millennium Bridge in London which had to be closed for further work soon after opening. This was, however, due to unexpected lateral vibration (resonant structural response) rather than any adherence to group theory.
Faustino: Good catch, well applicable to this blog. Better link [here].
It’s my opinion that we are seeing the collapse of expert opinion in areas where power and money are at stake while positions take decades to falsify. Welfare statism, leftist politics, complex financial instruments, climate change, and string theory satisfy these conditions. All but the last are on the ropes today.
We are discovering that the elites are just people with more money and somewhat better educations, who are as prone to be victims of groupthink and self-interest as anyone else. They have shown themselves to be untrustworthy. We can listen to them but we can’t abdicate responsibility to them.
I have no idea what comes next.
This is the theory that humans basically don’t care about being right.
Whoa, speak for yourself. There’s a spectrum there, and at one end are the people who absolutely detest being wrong. At the extreme end of that spectrum are the soccer goalies who commit suicide when a ball gets past them. Maybe only one or two of those, but there are plenty of professional scientists that can’t bear to be wrong.
Among them are those that will nevertheless admit to being wrong even though it pains them deeply to have to do so. Those are the ones I trust the most.
(“Yourself” in this case being Shakespeare rather than Faustino. Though I didn’t see Faustino objecting to “Shakespeare’s Law.”)
On the other hand, we receive a dopamine boost when we shift our opinion from a minority view to a majority view.
If, as climate skeptics claim, theirs is the majority view, why are climate scientists seemingly not getting this “dopamine boost?”
One possible explanation might be that climate skeptics congregate at skeptic blogs like this one to get their own dopamine boost. Attendance at church, temple, synagogue, mosque, etc. serves a similar purpose. Those not attending church regularly are at risk of forming the impression that atheists are in the majority. Atheism can be a corrupting influence.
ENTJ 33 38 25 22
B.BS.Det. courtesy of UHK.
Long time career and training and sales.
Sceptic to base level lukewarmer. Early scepticism due to seeing scientists using sales techniques for selling life insurance to push the AGW wagon. It’s really hard to take someone seriously when you see them using sales scripts that you might have written yourself.
Early training included how to set up and run pyramid and ponzi style schemes, how to convince the suckers to go along and how to handle the inevitable complaints. I never participated in such schemes as my parents endowed me with a strong ethical sense but all these cons share some basic techniques that once known are easily recognisable.
When you see them being used your BS Det goes off very loudly.
Early training included how to set up and run pyramid and ponzi style schemes, how to convince the suckers to go along and how to handle the inevitable complaints. I never participated in such schemes as my parents endowed me with a strong ethical sense
I bet. I’ve been suckered to the tune of several hundred thousand dollars by people with pitches just like yours. I’ve learnt the hard way to trust only people that don’t make pitches like yours.
INTJ, BSc(Biology), LLB, skeptical luke-warmer. Inclined to think that most of what passes as reasoning is ex-post facto rationalization of a position originally adopted in consequence of emotional biases.
I remember a few years ago. Richard Lindzen made some sort of comment about how 20 years ago, climate science had about the right number of people in it, and since the global warming issue came out, the field has grown by an order of magnitude with the vast majority of the new people being more interested in advocacy than science.
The very peculiar observation that the largest group in climate science is ENFJ, and that this is different from other natural sciences, strongly suggests that Lindzen is right. The field was literally taken over by activist types who are wholly unsuited to a career in science. They’re in the wrong field for the wrong reason.
Fine, but do you at least trust INTJ climate scientists?
If not then what point are you trying to make here?
No way!
A good engineer must not be swayed by groupthink.
If he has a partial differential equation to solve, in order relying on a groupthink, s/he must solve the equation using another independent method (eg finite element, finite difference, weighted residual or separation of variable methods). If the solutions agree, he is confident that the airplane’s power shaft or the bridge will be ok. If there are no governing equations for the problem, he admits the solution does not currently exist.
If he has a partial differential equation to solve, [instead of relying] on a groupthink, s/he must solve the equation using another independent method (eg finite element, finite difference, weighted residual or separation of variable methods). If the solutions agree, he is confident that the airplane’s power shaft or the bridge will be ok. If there are no governing equations for the problem, he admits the solution does not currently exist.
Girma, how can you be so right about technically nontrivial things while being so wrong about technically trivial things such as your claim ad nauseam that a model with a 70% r^2 is a reasonable fit? I can think of no explanation other than that you’re trolling.
There seem to be quite a few technically talented people on the web going around spouting nonsense that they clearly know to be nonsense. That’s what a troll is.
When you have to do personality tests to salvage a branch of science, you are in deep trouble.
Steven,
ouch.
When you have to do personality tests to salvage a branch of science, you are in deep trouble.
Agreed. But bear in mind who it is that feels the obligation to do these personality tests. If you say they’re in deep trouble, so be it. (Sorry, Judy, but it was your idea.)
OK I was INTJ (67,25,88,1) which apparently means I like closure, so here are the results of the Norwegian Jury (oops for US … mockery of Euro song contest)
Figures are group; number; percentage of total; actual/expected if results were evenly proportioned (which they aren’t!!)
INTJ 40.5 48.80% 7.8
ENTJ 10.5 12.65% 2.0
ISTJ 7.0 8.43% 1.3
INFJ 7.0 8.43% 1.35
INTP 5.5 6.63% 1.06
ESTJ 3.0 3.61% 0.58
ENFJ 3.0 3.61% 0.58
ISTP 2.0 2.41% 0.39
INFP 1.5 1.81% 0.29
ESTP 1.0 1.20% 0.19
ENTP 1.0 1.20% 0.19
ESFJ 1.0 1.20% 0.19
ISFJ 0.0 0.00% 0.00
ISFP 0.0 0.00% 0.00
ESFP 0.0 0.00% 0.00
ENFP 0.0 0.00% 0.00
TOTAL 83
Subgroups
NTJ 51.0 61.45% 4.92
NJ 61.0 73.49% 2.94
TJ 61.0 73.49% 2.94
NT 57.5 69.28% 2.77
IT 55.0 66.27% 2.65
IN 54.5 65.66% 2.63
IJ 54.5 65.66% 2.63
J 72.0 86.75% 1.73
T 70.5 84.94% 1.70
N 69.0 83.13% 1.66
I 63.5 76.51% 1.53
Least likely
FS 1.0 1.20% 0.05
FP 1.5 1.81% 0.07
EP 2.0 2.41% 0.10
EF 4.0 4.82% 0.19
Methodological summary: I winged it … in other words, I read all the posts and whenever someone seemed to be saying: “this is my score” I added them. Those who said borderline were .5:.5. My own result wasn’t included … I could claim it would bias the result … but to be honest, I forgot!!
There was no check for double counting and I spotted at least one I avoided. Obviously there may be over reporting due to some personality traits being more willing to participate. etc.
If anyone uses this data or finds error, can you email me mike2011 haseler.net
OK, I’ve now analysed the climate PhD’s compared to those posting here (and bearing in mind the test was different, so the result may tell us as much about the test as the people)
As a ratio of climate PhD’s to people here, the following significant (looked different & >1 person) ratios were found:
Amongst all personality types biggest difference (excluding groups where 0 or 1)
ENFJ(21:3) 6.6x
(Extrovert, intuitive, feeling, judge)
INTJ (50:40.5) 0.35
(introvert, intuition, thinking, judge)
IT (20:55) 0.34x
(Introvert, Thinker)
In the four least likely categories of people here: (FS,FP.EP,EP), adding the percentage there were a total of 10.24% (with 8.5 people) but 70.45%.for climate. In other words, in the least likely personality traits here there were 7x as many climate scientists,
The the biggest difference being that 36% of climate PhD’s were EF whereas 5% of respondents here reported as EF. (extravert – feeling) which means they are inclined to act first then think, and “empathise” with people (mother earth) rather than think things through.
Lastly, we must remember that this may be what climate science now attracts not the people who led us into global warming alarmism.
late for statistics…
personality: INTJ
level: french “ecole d’ingenieur” (~MSc, Bac+5) in Computer architecture/Software engineering
profession: Expert in Software engineering, “digital trust” (say plumbing/safe/seal designer for IT gas factories, have worked in R&D on High Perf Comp. for finance, so know about modeling scam ;> )
opinion: skeptic (but strongly agnostic, uncertain and critic on both side)
high to all the INTJ here… (and my wife will recognize my personality as described)
it is amazing how rare, strange, we are in common life, and numerous here.
as if the climate story was a shock for our mind structure (we seems to focus more on checked facts, global coherence, than communication and feelings)
far from the image propagated by the media of conservative white male….
Intuitive: “Facts? We don’t need no steenkin’ facts!”
hi!,I like your writing so so much! proportion we be in contact more about your post on AOL? I need a specialist on this house to resolve my problem. Maybe that’s you! Having a look forward to see you.
The good parts of a book may be only something a writer is lucky enough to overhear or it may be the wreck of his whole damn life and one is as good as the other.-Ernest Hemingway
We are a gaggle of volunteers and opening a new scheme in our community. Your site provided us with useful information to work on. You have done a formidable activity and our entire neighborhood will be grateful to you.
I love any product that makes my life easier and cyber clean has come up with a winner.
Hello, i think that i saw you visited my blog so i came to go back the prefer?.I’m trying to find issues to improve my web site!I suppose its adequate to use a few of your concepts!!
I’ve been exploring for a little bit for any high-quality articles or weblog posts in this kind of area . Exploring in Yahoo I ultimately stumbled upon this website. Reading this information So i am satisfied to convey that I’ve a very just right uncanny feeling I discovered just what I needed. I most certainly will make certain to do not fail to remember this website and provides it a glance regularly.
Heya i’m for the first time here. I found this board and I in finding It truly useful & it helped me out a lot. I am hoping to offer one thing again and help others such as you aided me.