Working in scientist

If I were a psychologist, I would be a working in scientist rather than a working out scientist. This is, mainly because, I come from a biology background and I find conducting experiments and supporting a hypothesis to be very interesting. As a working in scientist, I receive the privilledge to decide my participants and I am able to manipulate the independent variable. I like to find connections between cause and effect depending on the results I receive. A causal approach works well in a laboratory environment. As a working in scientist, I will be able to see the results through the behaviour of people instead of a bunch of number or stats on a piece of paper. I am not very interested in a normative approach as many cultures/groups of people interpret the exact same sample of results differently. Applying theories to existing results involves more paper work and reading while conducting lab experiments involve a lot of physical work. But in the end, both working in and working out scientists rely on each other for information. Although causal approach may mostly depend on evidence, a normative approach depends on the results as well as one's perspective.