I have observed a pattern among men in STEM fields, where their personality and pursuit of a singular objective truth often reverberate in their personal lives.

Things are often black and white for them, which is helpful for quick understanding and decisiveness. This also explains their disdain for fields such as the social sciences, which operate in a completely different mantra, where certainties are not present.

It is theories challenging other theories, which creates a magma of unapplicable knowledge that appears to contradict itself, in a certainty-driven mindset.

It is no wonder that men are overrepresented in hard science fields, which are governed by reason and structure. At the same time, women are often drawn to the humanities, with their feminine fluidity of feelings and malleable subjective realities.

On the one hand, we joke about girl math who would still argue that 2+2 is not equal to 4. Still, on the other hand, we have process- and framework-driven individuals who project the mechanics of their fields into human interactions, missing out on the unique personalities and individual characteristics of others as variables.

Essentially, social sciences are liquid, and hard sciences are solid.

The projection of women makes them deny the law of averages and generality, and the projection of men makes them oblivious to the human nature of interactions, behaving like the machines they program.

How does it translate in day-to-day lives? Guys will look at lines to say to a girl, thinking they will work all the time, without understanding the context, and how it would completely fall flat in the wrong setup. They just want to drop down the formula across the Excel spreadsheet. They will have a hard time understanding the concept of Frame, despite being so hell bent on their frameworks to operate, taking out all of their agency as humans.

The irony is that they look down on the humanities as a subject, as they dehumanise people in the way they approach their interaction. Although patterns exist, they outweigh that factor, reducing their individuality.

It reminds me of an X space when incels were invited to chat, and they claimed "vibe" doesn't exist, arguing it is only about looks. Asking an incel what vibe is was humorous to say the least. Outside of their crybaby mentality, there is little to be found in them in terms of vibe. No wonder they could not find one, even if it were staring right into their faces.

This dynamic of trying to force a quantitatively and purely hard science-driven approach in human relationships, thus denying the humanistic nature of social science, is also present in economics as a subject, where two different schools of thought exist.

The American One is heavily focused on a Quantitatively Driven Approach to address the topic through equations and the use of probabilities, making it a more respectable field of study. The more you bring Maths into it, the more it is supposed to be revered.

Whereas the French school is more concerned with examining it from a historico-political perspective, focusing on cause and effect.

In reality, Economics is a social science that is often desperate to be categorised as a hard science. The more Maths is involved outside of the standard metrics, the more it misses the essence of exchange between individuals, the marginal output from value generated in the economies, which is mostly subjective, and thus hard to gauge systematically.

Going back to the rigidity of the individuals specialising in STEM, there is a high correlation with their personality types (Myers-Briggs/MBTI). Funnily enough, many of them are the same ones that disregard this tool. Going back to the incel trying to appreciate what vibe is.

I was particularly sceptical of the Myers-Briggs science, as it is a social one, but after collating and triangulating the data, it was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Initially, out of curiosity, while appreciating the non-static nature of the results, I had numerous women on Bumble take the test, and the ones I vibed with the most yielded the same 2-3 results out of 16. My friends were more varied, primarily due to my open-minded nature and curiosity about individuals. However, I continued to notice a similar pattern with academically gifted individuals. They almost all had the "NT". The most striking aspect is that Js are hell-bent on structure, discipline, and rigidity, whereas Ps are more fluid.

I can now easily map people very fast. The only area where I sometimes get it wrong is distinguishing between N and S types. Extroverts and Introverts are easily identifiable. Thinking and feeling are pretty self-explanatory.

Coming out of five years in Tech, the amusing thing is that the software engineers I know are either INTPs or INTJs; it is so predictable, I can only smile.

Outside of the intellectual satisfaction of being right, it is also helpful to appreciate in which areas these individuals perform the best or are lacking.

Usually, people who are Js or coming from a STEM field tend to oversimplify things when it comes to people, so they get caught in mental loops when something does not fit their model. So, they either disregard stuff they don't understand, generally as a show of superiority, when in reality, it is what holds them back from addressing their core blind spots in getting what they want out of people.

It is all because they don't want to appear as if they don't understand. This makes them a great store of knowledge, coming from the fear of uncertainty. However, they are awful in terms of understanding humans, especially women. But they are not humble enough to appreciate that their ego is holding them back. When one knows they are knowledgeable, it can be a double-edged sword, as it can contaminate the field when they are unaware of their own limitations, and get the rubbish result they feel they should not get.

The certainty that has governed their drive for the truth, or their studies, and/or the field in their career brings them to be so worried of making the wrong move that they don't take the risk, they later then regret, holding on to that regret for years, and never getting over it, because it did not work out according to what they initially thought.

The rigid framework that has been so beneficial to them in their discipline is their downfall when it comes to people. So every time their brain loops on the issue, it embeds even deeper the problem they cannot solve, cementing that thought even more deeply, becoming a self-induced trauma, feeding their neuroticism.

This is not to say Frameworks are bad; hell, I am using the MBTI as a map, yet I am fully aware of its limitations. Frameworks are guidelines, not rigid rules. Js' and a lot of hard science guys love the rigid rules so that they can move on to something else. They are looking at efficiency at whatever costs, but pushed to a ridiculous level, it eventually starts to eat them from within when something does not fall into it.

I have observed all of the above in INTJs, as well as to a lesser degree in ENTJs. INTPs, unlike the other two, are not as reliant on the outcome to foster that need for certainty, which is something people cannot obtain within human interactions; it is the fact that they did not take the step at the right time. INTJs tend not to follow the steps because they are uncertain, whereas INTPs eventually do, but are often acting out of synchronicity.

All three plan things; they have their frameworks, and they have their ideal scenarios that they think will unfold in their minds. Still, when something does not follow what they have in their head, they spin out because they cannot handle a situation that occurs as they previously imagined it would.

The biggest issue with introverted intuition (INT) is that it lacks an external mirror, which is why they often make mistakes with other people, leading them to project on a level relatively higher than others. Less so with INF, because the feelings part makes them much more empathetic than their INT counterparts. However, it is not to say Extroverts have it better.

Personally, I suffered from a high level of lack of self-awareness before meeting someone who has become my best friend (an INFP). This encounter helped me improve at introspection, which was necessary for me to address some key flaws. This is something extroverts often lack, as they are drawn to others at the expense of themselves.

Now that we have diagnosed the problem, how can one improve their ability to deal with people more effectively?

The only way to nail every circumstance unprepared is to fail due to a lack of preparation for every circumstance. This is important for mastering women, but also for dealing with other men—trial by fire. Returning to the concept of liquid social science, men need to learn to be fluid in their interactions, rather than being overly prepared. It goes against the rigidity of their framework.

First, take action, then look at the feedback. If you don't have a good mentor, depending on your attribution skills, it will take more or less time for you to reach the correct conclusions and the right approach.

I did not, so I previously joked that I made all the mistakes in the book on a previous X profile. Had I not, I would be more clueless than I am now. However, the most dangerous situation to be in is becoming overconfident with a low level of knowledge and some positive results, and letting your ego fill in the blanks of that certainty-seeking, only to get schooled by life and waste even more time trying to make sense of everything; that I did too, lol.

You can bypass a lot of the pain and uncertainty from swimming in the dark by spending less time in it with the help of someone, but the lesson will most likely be learn in pain. Some individuals can learn from other people's wisdom, but people usually grasp it when they experience it firsthand, as we all like to think we are special.

If you become a master at nailing interactions without preparation, there really isn't anything stopping you. You become hyper-aware of the energy of the situation and people's body language, instead of developing an obsession with adhering to a certain routine. You appreciate chaos better because you thrive in it, and it allows you to gain the rawest information and have the most genuine interactions with individuals that would have been stale otherwise.

People love those who are present with them, mainly because they are often not present with themselves. This is why guys will fail at becoming socially sound, despite feeling they are putting in the effort.

The main issue is the uniformity of the approach across fields, STEMming from their success in their other areas of life, will become a hindrance, as illustrated by the roots of the problem:

The lack of calibration in their micro approach is downstream of the lack of calibration in their macro approach.