Not to say these people don't exist. But I think they exist in lesser numbers. Even I'm guilty of this. I know it... so I do it... but it's very unfun and tedious and... well I'm paid to do it so I can't complain.
I'll use myself as a research subject: I really like the scientific method, and don't mind a long grind. But the main barriers I run into with software fall into at least two major categories: 1. Compatible datasets or software: it takes a LOT of manual effort to collate good data sets, and because I am a software engineer, I want to automate these things, then I end up in tarpits and rabbit holes, building bridges rather than testing hypotheses.
2. Abstraction fatigue, There is so much vocabulary that we use, and we switch layers so quickly and in different contexts that I find it very time consuming and opaque to harmonize all the concepts. Real life pressures don't always afford the ability to really understand an entire stack, which I posit is necessary for a certain level of Rigor.
For example, right now I'm trying to Grok Clojure Transducers, and some folks are saying they are the same things as Monads. Are transducers a better pattern? Are they the same? Different? How much do they overlap?
I have feelings relating to dynamic types vs static types. I have feelings about wrapping implementations. I have feelings about the JVM vs the Haskell compiler vs the V8 JavaScript engine. Also, I get feelings related to polymorphism, metaprogramming, dependent types, homoiconicty.
But nothing fully baked. To call my feelings even 10% baked would be charitable. I can't currently describe all the relationships, or why my brain is currently zeroing in here in full fidelity. Only parts of it, and I remain in a state perplexity for now.
The formality of Category Theory and Abstract algebra sounds like it would be really nice here, but it's going to take me years to get to to speed in those domains, and I'm not even sure they have the theorums to compare these two patterns!