plusaf- I like your comments. As MM says, many anecdotes. But still, this pendulum thing, yes it is a characteristic of free markets, but it is more than that, it is inherent in all natural and human systems. Humans cannot stop it but they can make it worse, almost any attempt by government makes swings worse. The popular myth about 'we need more STEM' does not make this swing worse, as it continues regardless of what happens it just makes the supply of qualified technical people permanently too high reducing the cost at the expense of the supply of plumbers, roofers, and trades in general.

Yes. I expect YOU to be armed. I expect every soldier whether here or abroad to be ARMED. Shoot! A bear could break down your door. Get armed man! (full disclosure-I am not armed-well I have a harpoon. but it is not greatly effective) I have a pen

Engineers are people who love to solve problems, when most people just seek to avoid them. This is why they never want to be done with a design, because it is not perfect.

In my experience engineers are not at all easy to radicalize. They are serious skeptics!

I also don't know about the number of religious engineers. Doesn't feel that way to me, and I am more open to discussions that would expose such positions than most people (uninhibited is often used to describe me, among other less positive terms).

Maybe this was a study of engineers in Arab countries?

The difference is cultural. I agree that most of the engineers I have known are, as you say, positive and helpful. Anecdotes and confirmation bias aside, I think that the difference is cultural. America is a democracy, and I mean that not in the narrow, political sense, but in the broad sociological sense. Ayn Rand pointed this out in her comments on our labeling Presidents of the United States by nicknames, FDR, JKF, and Ike. I believe that both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were on the ballots under those monikers, rather than James Earl Carter and William Jefferson Clinton. The point is that we are all pretty much equal here.

On the other hand, in the old world, the Middle East in particular, social status is important. In sociology we call then "high context" societies where family connections set your rank. Thus becoming an engineer not only is supposed to elevate you, of course, but your family as well. So, they have a lot riding on this.

As for the stories you opened with, I guess we could call them "evil Dilberts." Yesterday, I bought my fourth collection of Dilbert Comics. I am working on a full set. But as you pointed out, that bitterness is contrary to a general mood. I add that like bittersweet chocolate, you need a little contrast for good enjoyment.

My anecdote: I worked with a Middle Eastern engineer who was incensed at having to drive compacts when renting at the airport. "I look like an unsuccessful salesman," he said. Status: it's so unAmerican.

whoa. I am spattering that everywhere

The point of the papers that I cited was the the correlation between the mindset of engineering and the mentality of jihad is not accidental.

http://carnegieendowment.org/files/09...
http://www.nuff.ox.ac.uk/users/gambet...

"Whether American, Canadian or Islamic, and whether due to selection or field socialisation, a disproportionate share of engineers seems to have a mindset that inclines them to entertain the quintessential right-wing features of “monism” – ‘why argue when there is one best solution’ – and of “simplism” – ‘if only people were rational, remedies would be simple’. "(Gambetta and Hertog page 50)

On the other hand, aviation culture has not been identified with the same psycho-epistemology, even though the work would seem to be like engineering. See my post here in the Gulch on "The Virtues of Aviation Culture."
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...

Accreditation criteria dictate the ethics requirement. See 3c, 3f, and 3h in the link below. I would incorporate ethics without the requirement, but all universities are required to address ethics. Interestingly enough, the engineers' code of conduct says that our primary responsibility is to the general population, rather than customers, selves, bosses, etc. This is of course contrary to Objectivism.

http://www.abet.org/accreditation/acc...

Have you been back to Ypsilanti recently? I enjoyed my time there.

That is an interesting insight regarding monism. It is a tendency that I have to train my engineering students to avoid. In engineering, there are almost always multiple possible answers. Defining what is "best" depends on the value assignments as to what is most valued. As someone on the border between science and engineering, I definitely agree with your assessment regarding the religious tendencies of engineers vs. the non-religious tendencies of scientists.

Regarding engineering students who are born-again Christians, I have seen many students attracted to the mathematical nature of crystallography serve as a starting point toward development of how materials self-assemble. Like Objectivists, the born-again Christian engineers often have a strong motivation toward understanding the fundamental aspects of existence.

Critical analysis takes us beyond statistics and anecdotes. Dissecting a case study is another way to look at a problem. Then, it can be associated with other, similar cases to generalize a valid explanation. As you say: "And migrants flock to the US and permeate the construction business... go figure. Some do excellent, hard work; others sleep on the job. I've seen both at my house in the past few years." But I have seen that among American-born engineers, also, when I worked at the Chrysler Manufacturing Technology Center.

And the general statistical summaries in the two papers I cited did not say that engineers become Arabs. It only pointed out a strong statistical presence (40% to 60%) of engineers among jihadi.

That is the salient point of the two papers that I cited. Engineers are different than scientists. Scientists are more akin to lawyers in their outlook, at least insofar as neither group is especially religious.

"Whether American, Canadian or Islamic, and whether due to selection or field socialisation, a disproportionate share of engineers seems to have a mindset that inclines them to entertain the quintessential right-wing features of “monism” – ‘why argue when there is one best solution’ – and of “simplism” – ‘if only people were rational, remedies would be simple’. "(Gambetta and Hertog page 50)

Governors in six states are now arming their national guards. One of them encouraged soldiers to obtain concealed-carry licenses and the guns to go with them. Do you really want an armed military within the United States?

The Texas Military Department headquarters that I report to does have armed guards at the gates (they work for a different division within the department), with 100% ID check and cargo check for delivery vehicles. At several of the national guard posts I have worked at, while much of the front area is open to the public. to go further, you must show ID to armed guards. The tension, though, is the proper role of the military within a constitutional republic on a foundation of democracy.

(We can debate democracy elsewhere, but I point out that at the local level, anyone who can vote can run for office, while President of the United States must be a natural (not naturalized) citizen at least 35 years of age. That hallmarks the difference between a democracy and a republic.)

Your zippy quip failed to address who actually carries a sidearm in the American military. We inherited and embraced a class-based system from the British: "an officer and a gentleman." Officers carry sidearms to shoot their own soldiers who do not obey orders, and conversely to protect themselves from that rabble. Soldiers on guard duty carry rifles, not guns. Though exceptions are all up and down the line, that is the general rule.

So, now we are arming soldiers with handguns. Maybe that is a good thing and maybe in another generation, we non-coms will call each other "sir" and "ma'am" and salute each other when we pass… and then dance a bit to decide to gets to walk on the right…

There is a lot more involved here. After 9/11, the NY City Hall pushed the people back with hard barriers that are still in place. All federal office buildings, and many state have TSA-type screening. And, riding a Greyhound from Michigan to Texas and back, I met the TSA screening people in Memphis. Think about that. That, the Patriot Act, the NSA domestic spying, and more,l happened because of reflexive responses to 9/11.

If the assaults in Chattanooga (which were only the latest in a series) are the result of an open society, then, I agree, k, that we should discuss those issues, and that analysis requires more than a zippy one-liner.

This guy was an engineer, but the attackers in 9/11 were pilots.

It doesn't matter what field you're successful in...mass murder in the name of "Something" is possible to any crazed individual.

Problem is...it's the average citizen, who wishes he could be a "Dirty Harry" and clean up the world, who is the one the Liberals spend all their time and effort demonizing, while ignoring the true crazies (who are, actually, more like them).

STEM... the latest Religious Movement.
While so many people complain they can't find high-paying jobs, they simultaneously complain they can't find a good carpenter, roofer, plumber or electrician to work on their homes... while those markets are so poorly served that lots of incompetents exist in the market, degrading the image of 'brain AND muscle workers.'

And migrants flock to the US and permeate the construction business... go figure. Some do excellent, hard work; others sleep on the job. I've seen both at my house in the past few years.

And a few comments about 'engineers.'
Engineers are tasked with implementing or designing solutions that will solve problems or meet needs. Someone defines the problem and engineers research solutions and lay out plans for which solutions would work best, fastest, cheapest (or at least two of those three...)

Science provides the toolbox; engineers conceive of the tools to meet the needs. Worker bees put the parts in place. Customers use the solutions.

And when I entered the job market in 1968, EE's were scarce and in demand. Some years later, as usual, there was a glut of engineers churned out by colleges and we suffered. Same as all the other pendulum-swing over-reactions that always happen in a free market. The pendulum's period might be years or decades, but pretty much everyone insists on 'solutions' that will show results next month. And are constantly frustrated when the results don't show up.

After college, I was at a company with a shitload of engineers, and unlike claims above, it seemed as if a LOT of us had Jewish backgrounds or history. So much for generalizations.

This is an intriguing idea and one that I recall from some old SF stories, but actually we have a pretty good diagram of human history from Miocene apes to the present day. This history is not complete, but it is at a better than 'connect the dots' stage.

Any substantial civilization on Earth would have left traces in both material goods and in genetics. We can chart the genetic migrations from tens of thousands of years ago, and the molecular clock of our genes puts limits on when we separated from our predecessors.

So there is no opportunity for our having a high tech civilization that predates our own. The closest we can get is Minoan, which may have had differential gears (certainly, the Antikythera device that dates to BC had them) and which civilization left fewer traces than we would like. We are dealing with bronze age technology, here, and not starships. It would not be possible to hide the remnants of that advanced a tech.

Pity, though - I like the thought. What we know from archeology and paleogentics can rule out a prior cycle of civilizations here on earth, and comparative genetics can show that we evolved here from earlier life forms.

I sometimes wonder where we would be now if Minoan civilization had not been destroyed. Would the Romans have had railroads? Telegraphs?

Jan

I think there will come a point where applied science implemented by engineers will be the only way to escape the madness of those in power. But it's pure speculation. When it comes to speculation at this stage of civilization, your ideas are as good as mine.

Since you brought up Rodenberry, let me insert a thought. We assume that Star Trek is about future adventures. Instead, what if it was a long time ago (not in a galaxy far away). We think of mankind as being around 200,000 years old, but it could just as easily be a million years or ten million, evolving to a certain point and then destroying itself. Geologically speaking, 200K years is less than an eyeblink.

If you read the original papers cited, you will see that this is a factor in the Arab/Islamic countries. Education is supposed to be the path to success, and they find themselves unemployed and impoverished because the economies of their nations are wrecked.

That being true - and that applying here, as a well - I perceive an important cultural difference. Here if an engineer is laid off, she finds some other way to make money, to capitalize on her skills, rather than just blaming the system - which she may well do with full justification. She takes responsibility for her situation, even though it was not of her making. That is a western attitude. In truth - hang on - that is a premise of Existentialism: you did not make the irrational world you were born into, but you are morally responsible for your place in it.

That is different than the Arab/Islamist worldview of the jihadi - or others of their kind, even in here in the USA - who blame others and who cannot get past that.

Marshall Thomsen of Eastern Michigan University - my alma mater - has been teaching “Ethical Issues in Physics” for over twenty years. A search of “ethics physics” and similar items will return citations to Dr. Thomsen’s work at websites from the Illinois Institute of Technology, the University of Illinois, the University of Massachusetts, and Physics Today, among many more.

When I had the class, he was on sabbatical and our professor was Patrick Koehn. The class also has been taught by Prof. Mary Elizabeth Kubitskey. Dr. Kubitskey’s master’s thesis was Teaching Ethics in a High School Physics Class.

By a roundabout way, I have an anonymous citation in a book on engineering ethics. “Of Owls, Wooden Walls, and Flower Girls,” in 4Es: Ethics, Engineering, Economics and Environment by John St. J. S. Buckeridge, Sydney: The Federation Press, 2011.

In 2011, I delivered a program on academic fraud and research misconduct, especially from police crime labs. (See CSIFlint2011.blogspot.com)

So, I approve of your school's requirement that engineers learn to consider the ethical ramifications of their work.

This is a great point, but still not the same issue. Which is an apparent major inconsistency in epistemological values and practices. I noticed this as an undergrad in aerospace engineering at Purdue (in Indiana). Lots of engineering students who were also devout Born-again Christians.
I struggled to understand (let alone debate) how they could be so analytical and scientific about engineering and physics yet not apply that to their religious beliefs. I still haven't figured it out, but I suspect it's analytical powers turned into powers of rationalization. Given X, a driven analytical mind can figure out a way to arrive at Y in their own mind.
Engineers also love order and predictability.
Maybe Eric Hoffer and his "True Believer" book has some clues for us?

I agree with you. Since I've become a student of business innovation (and learning by doing) I've gained a much greater appreciation for the value of artful design within the highly technical trades. Art (or passion and creativity) combined with "hard" skills beat the dry implementation every time.

No Herb, I think not. I think it will be the 2% - and they, the innovators, will be scattered amongst professions. Remember - the best chance we have had so far at creating an effective Warp drive came about because a young mathematician tried to figure out how the engines of the USS Enterprise worked. Roddenberry's creation of a TV SciFi series may have been our key to the stars.

No, I am not a writer but I observe that we go where inspiration leads us.

Jan

Like a piano without black keys - OOOPS! or
maybe without white keys. Gotta be politically
correct, ya know...

I think that is because of collectability, which is a stupid reason to buy a utilitarian device.

he states that he reasons! that was as far as one has to read.

I'm an engineer, and I agree with the importance of engineering. I note, though, that Apple makes phones that people value more than Samsung phones because of the value artists add to them.