People are like plutonium

Abstract

An analogy is drawn between the study of human behavior and the study of plutonium to demonstrate that soft and hard sciences are more similar than different, making the distinction moot and unproductive. The studies of human behavior and plutonium follow a common scientific research cycle that aligns with Thomas Kuhn’s views of scientific change. This common research cycle provides evidence that the thought processes and methodologies required for success are congruent in the soft and hard sciences. The primary implication from this analogy is that scientists in all disciplines should eradicate the distinction between soft and hard sciences. Focusing on similarities rather than differences among researchers from different disciplines is necessary to enhance collective intelligence and the type of transdisciplinary collaboration required to tackle difficult sociotechnical problems.

CCS Concepts: • Social and professional topics • User characteristics • Cultural characteristics.

Introduction

We propose that the soft and hard sciences are more similar than different. While modern scientific disciplines are commonly divided into the natural, social, and formal branches, they are also frequently categorized informally on a hard-to-soft continuum (Cohen, 2021; Shermer, 2007) (see Figure 1). The terminology is typically used pejoratively, resulting in a demeaning and dismissive attitude toward the soft sciences and a perception that the study of human behavior is too “soft and squishy” to be taken as seriously as the study of hard sciences (VanLandingham, 2014: 124). As a result, soft sciences may be implicitly considered less legitimate scientific disciplines or not part of science at all (Emeagwali, 2013). Further, collective intelligence in transdisciplinary scientific endeavors can be hindered when contributions are filtered needlessly through the lens of the hard-to-soft continuum.

Figure 1.

Traditional ranking of scientific disciplines on the hard-to-soft continuum.

Evidence for our proposition is drawn from an analogy demonstrating parallels between the study of human behavior (social sciences—soft end of the spectrum) and the study of plutonium (physical sciences—hard end of the spectrum). Parallels between the studies of plutonium and human behavior are portrayed in the two panels of Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Parallels between studies of plutonium and human behavior.

Scientific research cycle

Figure 2(a) illustrates that studies of plutonium and human behavior have a common scientific research cycle. For plutonium, chaos initially dominated the World War II Manhattan Project, as scientists worked rapidly to acquire basic knowledge about the 94th chemical in the periodic table of elements to develop a practical air-dropped nuclear weapon for wartime deployment. Scientists were baffled by the wide range of density measurements, with no consistency across time or samples (Martz et al., 2021). After rigorous study , the variance in density measurements was shown to be due to plutonium’s five different phases, based on variations in temperature. Discovering plutonium’s phases clarified other physical properties such as hardness and tensile strength. Mastery occurred with continued rigorous study and led to expansion of the original 1944 two-volume plutonium handbook into the 2019 seven-volume edition (Clark et al., 2019; Thomas and Warner, 1944). With mastery of plutonium’s initially baffling properties came the opportunity to explore new frontiers . Plutonium’s sixth δ′ phase was discovered well after World War II in 1954, and the existence of a seventh phase was demonstrated in 1970 (Martz et al., 2021). Further, new knowledge regarding impacts of aging on plutonium’s properties continues to emerge (Hecker and Martz, 2000; Kramer, 2020).

As with plutonium, chaos initially characterizes the study of human behavior, which can seem perplexing, random, and unpredictable but can be understood by progressing through the four phases of the scientific research cycle. With rigorous study , the bounds on various visible and invisible human properties become known and help make sense of the chaos. Predictability for the human visual sense became possible by understanding that humans perceive only a very narrow range of the electromagnetic spectrum constrained to visible light. As with plutonium, mastery in the study of human behavior is substantiated by a plethora of detailed handbooks covering a range of topics. The American Psychological Association alone has 31 handbooks encompassing personality and social psychology, industrial and organizational psychology, and clinical psychology. Finally, just like plutonium, new frontiers in human behavior continue to emerge—a new domain of positive psychology in the 1990s (Seligman, 2012), addition of the fifth umami taste sensation (Ikeda, 2002; Nelson, 2002; Roper and Chaudhari, 2009), and recent developments in virtual learning.

This scientific research cycle, common to both hard and soft sciences, aligns well with Thomas Kuhn’s views of how change occurs in any scientific domain (Kuhn, 2012). Kuhn’s views of scientific change center around the notion of a paradigm—a framework of norms, assumptions, beliefs, principles, and methods providing the worldview within which scientific research is conducted. In effect, a paradigm establishes a boundary that identifies what is inside and outside the scientific domain, for example, the problems appropriate for research, the nature of the data to be collected, the research methods to be used, and the types of solutions considered. As in the present paper, Kuhn (2012) explains the process of scientific change via recurring phases that alternate between what he calls normal science and revolutionary science, or paradigm shifts. Kuhn’s pre-science phase, characterized by multiple competing incomplete theories, corresponds to the initial chaos phase depicted in Figure 2(a). His normal science phase, which involves the incremental accumulation of knowledge over time to explain observed phenomena and improve the prevailing paradigm, aligns with the rigorous study and mastery phases in Figure 2(a). Finally, Kuhn’s paradigm shift phase, which represents a scientific revolution to address unresolved anomalies that are difficult to explain within the current paradigm, parallels the new frontiers phase in Figure 2(a). Like the scientific research cycle portrayed in Figure 2(a), Kuhn’s phases of science can be applied to any scientific domain, regardless of whether it is considered hard or soft.

Additional parallels

Figure 2(b) depicts additional parallels between the studies of plutonium and human behavior. These parallels involve comparing various features applicable to both types of material that have been identified through decades of research in both fields.

Phases

Plutonium’s six recognized phases occur based on temperature variations that transform basic properties such as density and hardness. Much like plutonium’s distinct phases, humans also have multiple phases that can be distinguished by physical properties such as height, weight, and mobility. As just one example, people gain an average of 45 inches in height from birth to adulthood before losing up to two inches during senescence.

Compatibilities

As shown by studies of both plutonium and people, performance and certain properties can be optimized by analyzing compatibilities. For plutonium, the dilemma was to identify other compatible chemical elements to combine with plutonium and prevent spontaneous transition to a different phase, impeding warping and cracking and enhancing stability for storage and transportation. For humans, a frequent dilemma is to identify the right combination of people to achieve a given workplace objective like innovation—the application of creative ideas to solve tangible problems. One method to select for compatibilities among team members involves the concept of innovation orientation, or the preferred way each individual approaches and solves problems, thinks, and makes decisions (Rosenfeld, 2006, 2014; Rosenfeld et al., 2011).

Innovation orientation can be measured via the Innovation Strengths Preference Indicator® (ISPI^TM), a reliable and valid self-assessment tool that makes visible the invisible elements comprising all three aspects of human mental functioning: (1) cognitive (thinking and deciding); (2) affective (interacting with others); and (3) conative (taking action) (Rosenfeld et al., 2011). Under the ISPI^TM model, three types of innovation approaches are represented on a continuum that ranges from evolutionary (incremental improvement) to revolutionary (breakthrough) (see Figure 3). As shown in Figure 3, the terms builder, connector, and pioneer are used when describing individual innovation orientations, or the types of people who perform evolutionary, expansionary, and revolutionary innovation. Builders prefer to make incremental improvements within existing paradigms (akin to Kuhn’s concept of normal science). Connectors do things differently and serve as a bridge for others. Pioneers tend to break out of the current paradigm to create something entirely new, thriving on disruption and change that may deviate from established rules and norms (akin to Kuhn’s concept of revolutionary science, or paradigm shifts).

Figure 3.

Three basic approaches to innovation. Note. Adapted from The Invisible Element: A Practical Guide for the Human Dynamics of Innovation (p. 62), by R. B. Rosenfeld, G. J. Wilhelmi, and A. Harrison, 2011, Innovatus Press. Copyright 2011 by Idea Connection Systems, Inc. Adapted with permission.

Substitutes for experimentation

Surrogate materials have been used as substitutes to advance the study of both plutonium and human behavior. More readily available materials like uranium, tungsten, lead, copper, and gold have been used as plutonium substitutes, facilitating testing and perfection of techniques for transfer and adaptation to plutonium. Similarly, several seminal research findings in psychology were first identified in animal surrogates. Ivan Pavlov discovered classical conditioning by examining salivation in dogs. B. F. Skinner first studied operant conditioning by conducting experiments with rats. Harry Harlow initially used rhesus monkeys to investigate social relationships in early development.

Aging

Aging in both plutonium and people produces microscopic and macroscopic changes in properties. In plutonium, aging depends on phase and environmental exposure; for example, unalloyed α-phase plutonium warps and cracks after only one day at room temperature. Plutonium rusts more than iron when exposed to the atmosphere and undergoes microscopic changes at the nuclear level due to its radioactive nature (Hecker and Martz, 2000; Kramer, 2020). In people, mental and physical aging can differ, depending on genetics and environment. As in plutonium, “rusting” in the human body occurs at a macroscopic level when hair loses color and skin wrinkles and sags and at a microscopic level when muscle loss increases and bones become more brittle.

Implications of the analogy

The analogy in this paper demonstrates the thought processes and methodologies required for success are the same in the soft and hard sciences. The materials studied in various disciplines differ, but the processes to study them are parallel. The analogy between the studies of plutonium and human behavior has four important implications for scientists in all disciplines.

Transciplinarity of scientific research

The growing transdisciplinarity of scientific research requires effective collaboration across disciplines (Feng and Kirkley, 2020; Lakhani et al., 2012; Morillo et al., 2003; Porter and Rafols, 2009; VanLandingham, 2014). A focus on similarities rather than differences among researchers from different disciplines is necessary for effective collective intelligence. Cohesion and mutual respect represent two key attributes for effective transdisciplinary research teams (Lakhani et al., 2012).

Role of judgment in science

Judgment and subjectivity are inherent in all scientific endeavors and are not confined to the social and behavioral sciences, as commonly perceived (Baron, 2019; Mannan, 2016). Decisions based on judgment and skill are made throughout the entire process—identifying a question for research, generating hypotheses, selecting research methods, interpreting data, and determining when to conclude the research. As Kuhn (2012) points out, all of these decisions and judgments are influenced by the current paradigm in which they are embedded. Different judgments might be made following a paradigm shift, which alters the social context in which the scientific research occurs and influences scientists’ perspectives, thought processes, and decisions. However, subjectivity does not necessarily imply a lack of scientific rigor (Curtis, 2012). It should be embraced and leveraged because it can contribute to novel hypotheses, progression of ideas, and serendipitous findings.

Importance of human behavior for all scientific disciplines

Human behavior is a significant driver in many areas and is not confined to the social and behavioral sciences (In Praise, 2005). Most critical problems of the present and future represent “wicked” sociotechnical problems that cannot be solved by approaching them from only a technical perspective (Johnson and Yonas, 2006). They require increased focus on people in the system. Scientists in all disciplines must understand and apply key principles from the social and behavioral sciences to succeed in today’s collaborative workplace and support a range of innovation approaches (Bersin, 2020; Cheruvelil et al., 2014; Denney et al., 2020; Farrell et al., 2021; Maxwell, 2000).

Soft versus hard distinction

The soft versus hard distinction should be eradicated because it no longer serves a purpose and creates unnecessary barriers that cause more harm than good. According to VanLandingham (2014), ignorance of state-of-the-art methods used in the social and behavioral sciences can be a “serious impediment to scientific progress” (p. 125). Eliminating the soft versus hard distinction opens the door for more robust and inclusive collaboration that leverages the strengths of multiple disciplines and enhances collective intelligence.

Conclusion and recommendation

As the analogy between plutonium and people illustrates, the soft and hard sciences are more similar than different. Accordingly, we propose replacing the current segregated view of science that ranks scientific disciplines on the hard-to-soft continuum with an alternative view that better supports collective intelligence (see Figure 4). This alternative view emphasizes the existence of fuzzy rather than distinct boundaries among the various disciplines as well as their overlaps and interconnections, akin to a neural network. This alternative view highlights the interconnections that permeate science rather than focusing on stringent black-and-white distinctions and narrow definitions that may be used to erect barriers among disciplines and hinder transdisciplinary collaboration. The alternative representation aligns with evidence that scientists in different disciplines demonstrate similar thought processes. Namely, as shown in Figure 4, scientists representing the physical, biological, and social sciences exhibit innovation orientations that span the range of the continuum, from evolutionary to expansionary and revolutionary.

Figure 4.

Alternative view of relationships among scientific disciplines.