I think the ‘identity’ we’re ascribing to the nascent community here is more complicated than any existing labels. Maybe we could build one, but I don’t think there is one now.
I generally label myself contextually, in response to kinds of evaluation being made in the conversation or missive:
When I’m trying to emphasize my commitment to quantifiable, established knowledge or highlight my rejection of a concept of school of thought I feel falls outside that, I call myself a Scientist.
When the discussion centers on reflective beliefs, conceptual methodology, or worldviews, I call myself a Rationalist.
During discussions about effectiveness, organization, and the feasibility of actions, when I want to highlight my tendency to evaluate ends and means for costs and details, I call myself an Engineer.
To highlight my consequentialist evaluation of actions in ethical and moral judgements, I call myself a Pragmatist.
Discussions get too abstract or ungrounded, without units or direct examples, so to get back to more useful areas I call myself a Realist.
Often I find myself in discussions with multiple persons, whose rhetoric seems to have retreated into armed camps, so to coax them to engage in constructive exchange and give myself an opportunity to get a look at their best data as opposed to their best arguments, I describe myself as Willing to Be Persuaded.
I think the ‘identity’ we’re ascribing to the nascent community here is more complicated than any existing labels. Maybe we could build one, but I don’t think there is one now.
I generally label myself contextually, in response to kinds of evaluation being made in the conversation or missive:
When I’m trying to emphasize my commitment to quantifiable, established knowledge or highlight my rejection of a concept of school of thought I feel falls outside that, I call myself a Scientist.
When the discussion centers on reflective beliefs, conceptual methodology, or worldviews, I call myself a Rationalist.
During discussions about effectiveness, organization, and the feasibility of actions, when I want to highlight my tendency to evaluate ends and means for costs and details, I call myself an Engineer.
To highlight my consequentialist evaluation of actions in ethical and moral judgements, I call myself a Pragmatist.
Discussions get too abstract or ungrounded, without units or direct examples, so to get back to more useful areas I call myself a Realist.
Often I find myself in discussions with multiple persons, whose rhetoric seems to have retreated into armed camps, so to coax them to engage in constructive exchange and give myself an opportunity to get a look at their best data as opposed to their best arguments, I describe myself as Willing to Be Persuaded.
Oh, um, in case it wasn’t clear, I think everybody would have their own array of negative and positive descriptors. I don’t think we’re that similar.