You are a scientist/analyst. You analyze models, events, and situations and determine the conclusion of such things. From that point forward you strive to understand why you arrived at the conclusion you have received. In pure abstract this is represented as the conditional (if P then Q). In its absolute extreme form, the scientist/analyst applies ruthlessly the philosophy "Does it work?"
The fundamental flaw of the Scientist/Analyst is this:
"People inherently do not make sense"
The Scientist/Analyst receives terabytes of information about human interaction if he or she is paying attention to just one person (even if he/she does not understand it at all). They use put that elaborate system of conditional statements to attempt to arrive at a conclusion and even by then, new data is generated that must be analyzed for its conclusion. Repeat ad infinitum.
On top of this, received data more than often conflicts each other whether data is incomplete, misread, or the other person changed their own internal decision making process (the last being an actual contradiction). You have to constantly be revising your own internal though process to understand someone elses thought process. Even when you think you've become sufficient at this, someone manages to throw you off balance.
Add more people to the mix and the Scientist/Analyst will eventually become overwhelmed by the surge of unprocessed information. They will begin to doubt their own ability to process such data when in fact they can (input data is simply coming in faster than one can process the data).
Is being a Scientist/Analyst bad? No it is not. It is, however, not the most optimal form to be in all the time. You can wish for people to simply make sense but it won't happen. This blog can be evidence of you attempting to reorganize data so that you can analyze it better when it is written out.
[Edited by Neo7, 3/21/2012 10:19:40 PM]