cognitive style, formal-mindedness and hacking

[gusl]

In Feb 2006, I wrote:

<< Since I like my knowledge network to be dense / tight (i.e. certain), ignoring foundational questions and paradoxes is totally against my cognitive style >> (original)

This is still true. Whenever my knowledge base and my intuition seem to disagree about something, I feel a strong urge to go fix it before doing anything else. This means that I can be slower than my peers, but also that I tend to develop a stronger foundation. I naturally chew on ideas for a long time (sometimes while I sleep!), which occasionally leads to Eureka moments. Perhaps this is extreme P.
I'm also a relational thinker: I like reusing my knowledge, via analogies, though I often insist that analogies be precise (i.e. far-reaching), or at least explicit about their scope. Translating ideas between different fields is fun.

Given the above, and my desire for clear unambiguous notation, and my love of expressing things in lambda-calculus, and my occasional dreams about automated reasoning, I've given myself the label of "formalist". But I don't know if it's a good label.

In any case, does this cognitive style mean that I don't like hacking or that I can't be a good hacker?

I think the answer is no. I enjoy hacking when it gets stuff to work, although sometimes I will dream of redesigning the whole system, so that the "hack" can be expressed naturally and elegantly (making it no longer a "hack"). OTOH, the creative art of coming up with simple effective hacks has an aesthetic of its own. Being a formal-minded person just means that I like my hacks to be explicit about what they do.

The message I get from some people is: "you're a formalist, therefore you probably wouldn't do well in messy fields". To take the implication a little further, this is saying that I can only do well in easy fields. But I think the correct conclusion is that I probably wouldn't do well, if I worked alone, in competitive fields that move super-fast (where it's easy to get scooped).

Comments

I would go much further

[dachte.livejournal.com]

I believe that an excessive inclination to formalism (which I believe characterises you) in fact is unscientific (in that you seem to dictate that the world align well with formalist notions and align neatly along logical lines). Scientists should be deeply empiricist, with formal logic being seen as a good but not the primary or only good. Your inclinations don't make you unsuitable for science, but they do hurt you, I believe.

Re: I would go much further

[gustavolacerda.livejournal.com]

Formalism only refers to how I like to how I talk about the world (though much thinking, which is verbal, may be affected). It could potentially make my language inflexible. One thing I find very satisfying is adapting formalism to express common-sense descriptions of real phenomena. i.e. I like to capture informal logic formally.

Re: I would go much further

[gustavolacerda.livejournal.com]

I really don't understand what your view of a "formalistically-inclined scientist" is. To me, it sounds something like a strawman of dogmatic, stubborn, normal sciency type... which I view as a typically J characteristic, rather than P.

[gustavolacerda.livejournal.com]

Contrast "formalism" with a tendency to see patterns (possibly where there aren't any). Both may be reason to call someone a "theoretical person".

[ikeepaleopard]

You keep saying things like, I have property X or I am a property Y person. In my experience and from what I have read, many of these properties are 1. contextual 2. not innate characteristics so much as strong habits. By categorizing yourself in these ways, you box yourself in. There is a measured tendency in people to move toward more extreme behaviors as a way of differentiating themselves or simply because having decided they are a property Z person they take that property into account when making decisions e.g. thinking since I am a property ω person then it must be that I should take this action.

[gustavolacerda.livejournal.com]

Very good point.

Although, this would mean that whenever you analyze oneself, you box yourself in. Therefore, you should never analyze yourself / your habits.

[ikeepaleopard]

That conclusion doesn't follow at all. It merely implies that you should be aware that your tendencies are not set in stone and that claiming to be an X person is a reductive over generalization.

[gustavolacerda.livejournal.com]

Once it's very clear to you that you're an X person in certain context, and you desire to analyze yourself further, it seems natural to state this plainly. Why not?

[gustavolacerda.livejournal.com]

Also, I find it curious fact that people tend to act according to what they think they are... as if "being who you are" is a job that needs to be done the same way as it was done in the past.

It's like people who, by virtue of doing psychotherapy, stay stuck in the issues of the past.

I like to think that I'm rather unself-conscious, and thus immune to such effects... but I don't know that.