Posted on 12/29/2009 8:42:08 AM PST by 1rudeboy
OK, I laughed. Probably spot-on.
Nope. Hokie.
bump and ping
Most Engineers know how to use a knife and fork - a requisite for most suicide bombers.
As was stated earlier, engineering embraces a very wide range of political beliefs and operating types. That said, the very focus on science laws, rules, theorems and proofs at the expense of philosophy, literature, critical analysis outside of the ‘scientific’ method tends to limit their view of what is really relevant and of value. The following is indeed a stereotype but is based 45+ years of intimate observation and operating experiences.
Engineers tend to be very simplistic in their analysis of anything that involves real-world economics (albeit they love the Samuelson and quantitative modeling crap that ignores human action) as well as about anything relating to politics (beyond their immediate experience), and human relations. Outside their field of concentration, they will side with those identified as experts - to the point they are extremely gullible. Fo
Want examples? How about a graduate engineer with an MBA that identifies the combustion engine as the single most damaging and evil invention of the past 200 years? That was an MIT graduate with Masters in Mechanical Engineer and a Sloan MBA.
Or, how about the PhD. in Economics whose theory for success in business was to have government-funded research to determine the proper allocation of company funds to product development, manufacturing, sales, support, marketing and appropriate profit margins for each industry - then enforce these. His proudly proclaimed basis for all the decisions in his life would be based on economic heuristics he learned during MIT’s graduate economics.
None of those attributes are “bad” but neither do they help in dealing with the less objective world; where it may be easiest to go for the absolutism that terrorists and socialism/fascism require.
The other thing I forgot to add is that engineers tend to see things in black and white, where as people in other fields tend to see shades of gray. We can argue about the value of a current engineering degree, but I contend that you have to put up with a lot more complexity than in other (easier) disciplines. In many cases, engineers can problem solve and think around technical hurdles that might stump others. And, yes, I am an engineer.
Not ALL Muslims are terrorists, but ALL terrorists are Muslims.
Oh, really? Does that include the engineers that post here?
“The authors instead conclude that the phenomenon is explained by a combination of mindset and professional circumstance. Citing studies finding that engineers as a group are more politically conservative than other professions, Gambetta and Hertog write that engineers by nature are more likely to be drawn to the kind of rigid, hierarchical worldviews that radical Islam provides: Their governing mentality ‘inclines them to take more extreme conservative and religious positions everywhere.’”
Utter stupidity. Engineering can also be called “applied science” or “problem solving through applied science.” Engineers deal with the real world. You can’t design a bridge, circuit, chair, or just about anyting else by “feeling” or “wishing.” You have to deal with the objective facts. That’s why engineers tend to be conservative — they deal with reality, not fantasy (a requirement to be a leftist).
It’s also no surprise that wanna-be terrorists go into engineering. The combination of problem solving and basic (and often advanced) science is VERY useful in a military context. The article mixes cause and effect.
PS Some of the comments up-thread about engineers show some real ignorance.
I think Yassir Arafat was an engineer or architect by training, and Osama bin Laden came from a family that owned a number of design/construction firms.
Speaking as an engineer, I'd say it's a pretty accurate assessment, so far as it goes. It's not so much a matter of "being conservative," however, as it is having a mindset based on applying engineering logic to human situations: "if I do this, then people will do that, and I'll get the desired result." It's a mindset that often doesn't account well for how real people will respond to a situation.
Of course, only a tiny percentage of engineering-types would be attracted to something like terrorism; but as a proportion, I can see the mindset being susceptible to the simplicity and "logic" of terrorist action.
As an aside, I once did an informal FR poll of self-described libertarians, and confirmed my prediction being that they'd be predominantly technical types as well.... The mindset again being, essentially, that if everybody would just behave as if they're part of an engineering problem, things would work out great.
Uh, no. Not even these days is that true, bozo.
Yes, it does.
The problem with us engineers, however, is that we tend to treat human situations like we're designing a bridge or a chair. Our contempt for "feeling" or "wishing" is fine for hardware, and damaging to our ability to deal with people as people.
Name one group, clown.
PETN is not a "binary" explosive. PETN's preparation involves the nitration of pentaerythritol with white fuming nitric acid. Yes, there are two substances involved in it's formulation but "nitration" is definitely not done in the field just prior to use (concentrated nitric acid is not something to pour into your shorts!). PETN is a white crystalline solid, chemically related to nitroglycerin. It is difficult to detonate, as dropping it or setting it on fire will usually not cause an explosion. It finds use as a "booster" explosive in detonators, as the explosive in detonation cord, and a major ingredient of Semtex (East Block plastic explosive, darling of terrorists).
I would think that rather then go through all the work of collecting the precursor chemicals and the required acids and then undertaking the tricky nitration step a terrorist would probably just acquire some det cord or Semtex and dissolve the explosive in acetone, separating the PETN from the other inert ingredients. Then it's just a matter of soaking his "tidy whites" in the solution and waiting 'till the acetone evaporates. Presto, explosive shorts...
Regards,
GtG
PS A Bomb sniffing dog would still find the PETN unless our hypothetical terrorist didn't shower for a month.
PPS Yes, binary explosives exist, and yes, some of them are most powerful. But the chemistry involved does not lend itself to "covert" use. The liquids involved (anhydrous hydrazine, nitromethane, nitrobenzene, &c.) are highly reactive and require special handling. I believe the MSM has found the "binary explosive" adjective lends a sort of faux scientific veneer to their speculative prose.
G
Some do, some don’t. That said, more damage has by done in the name of short-sighted compassion than just about anything else. Just look at the “compassionate” Welfare State and all the misery it has created. Another example is enabling “love” by over-feeling parents who end up raising monsters.
Dealing with cold reality - without the feelings - is actually often the most compassionate course in the long run.
PS I used to be in engineering, too. Got out partly because it can be a dry sterile world...
What I was suggesting is that 'black and white' often leads to a draconian "fix". (Baby versus bathwater)
The complexity of an engineering degree is real but it is not broad enough to see those shades of gray or to necessarily recognize the best answer to problems outside of the specialty. ("Elegant" equals "simple" and sometimes simplistic.)
I'm certainly not pushing for more liberal arts majors or a move away from technical matters. I am glad that I went to school when basic education (maybe through 10th) had broad goals and specialization came after some opportunity to build a foundation.
Can't forget the Catholic IRA, now, can we?
There's two, bozo.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.