Engineers Have a Terrorist Mindset?

An anonymous reader writes "Do engineers have a way of looking at the world not all that different from terrorists? According to an article in the EE Times, they do. The story cites 'Engineers of Jihad,' a paper (pdf download) by two Oxford University sociologists, who found that graduates in science, engineering, and medicine are strongly overrepresented among Islamist movements. The paper also found that engineers are 'over-represented' among graduates who gravitate to violent groups. Authors Diego Gambetta and Steffen Hertog chalk this all up to what they call the 'engineering mindset,' which they define as 'a mindset that inclines them to take more extreme conservative and religious positions.' Is this just pop psychology masquerading as science?"

is it April 1?

[yagu]

First and foremost, to answer the question put forth in the summary:

Is this just pop psychology masquerading as science?

To parse:

• is it pop psychology(?)

  this first would have to lend credence that the thesis warrants comparison to psychology in any way, let alone "pop" psychology which tends to be a few rungs down from the imprimatur of truly researched psychology. It isn't. It's not even close.

• masquerading(?)

  You bet! No matter what this is trying to be in any genuine sense other than phooey, it's masquerading.

• science(?)

  Not a chance. Anecdotally I would expect to be able to be able to think of a number of fellow engineers who match the description and thesis. I'm not sure I can even think of a single example. I can think of some peers from the past who I may describe as of a similar mindset, but those I would hardly describe as real engineers.

I'm guessing this article was supposed to be released April 1, but someone jumped the gun. That said, it's not even a very funny joke.

Re:is it April 1?

[mapkinase]

"I'm not sure I can even think of a single example"

1. Ph.D. in science. Check.
2. Islamic fundamentalist (is it a movement?). Check.

Half of my mosque is of that type.

Supporting Shari'a, strict dressing, beards and stuff.

BOO!

Re:

[Bombula]

1. Ph.D. in science. Check. 2. Islamic fundamentalist (is it a movement?). Check.

The ability to compartmentalize one's mind into two entirely separate and contradictory sides is an astonishing testament to the brain's plasticity. It basically makes a person schizophrenic - they operate as if they exist in two different and incompatible realities - and of course that is a very frightening thing when you're dealing with people whose value system dictates that violence, racism, sexism, misogeny, homophobia,

Re:

[mapkinase]

"If nothing else, the fact that a person can possess rational faculties sufficient to obtain a PhD while simultaneously adhering to the totally irrational and delusional tenets of religion is highly entertaining."

I am quite entertained as well. I think the ability to make far-fetching logical conclusions using wrong implicit assumptions is also indicative of this disease.

Let's see.

"The ability to compartmentalize one's mind into two entirely separate and contradictory sides is an astonishing testament to th

Re:is it April 1?

[Bombula]

This pretty much ends the false dichotomy between Science and Faith.

Anyone who honestly believes there is no contradiction between science (the application of critical thinking, the challenging of assumptions, and the use of an ever-expanding body of evidence to understand the universe) and religion (the demonization of critical thinking, the elevation of dogma and preservation of ignorance, and the use of iron-age superstition and irrationality to 'understand' the universe) is either ignorant, stupid, fucntionally schizophrenic (as I said in my first post) or all of the above.

If you've actually read anything in the Quran, you'll know that eveyrthing I said about it earlier was true: it promotes a barbaric value system that any 21st Century child can see is hopelessly flawed. It is useless as a guide to creating a civil, open and free society, and it is useless as a guide to understanding the universe. That makes it pretty darn useless. The only thing it is really good at is perpetuating delusional wish-thinking about a nonexistant afterlife, and making otherwise normal people do diabolical and insane things in order to obtain an imaginary reward after death.

Science is by definition is the domain of Seen by experiment or experimentally verifiable logical conclusions of experiments.

All religions, including Islam, make explicit claims about reality. Reality is "the Seen." That's all reality is, and all it could possibly be. That's all human beings are - by definition - capable of knowing. There is no domain outside of reality. And this is the problem: religion doesn't just make senseless claims about imaginary things; it makes pernicious claims about reality that are patently false.

Dogma meets Bile-Filled Irony.

[Valdrax]

Anyone who honestly believes there is no contradiction between science (the application of critical thinking, the challenging of assumptions, and the use of an ever-expanding body of evidence to understand the universe) and religion (the demonization of critical thinking, the elevation of dogma and preservation of ignorance, and the use of iron-age superstition and irrationality to 'understand' the universe) is either ignorant, stupid, fucntionally schizophrenic (as I said in my first post) or all of the above.

Anyone who thinks that critical thinking happens in the absence of unprovable postulates has never done any critical thinking. Everything from "I exist" to "Time flows" to "Cause and effect exists" to "The information my senses provide me is accurate and true" is just as much an unprovable (and impossible to disprove) assumption as "The universe has a first cause" or "We persist after death" or "All of this has meaning."

Furthermore, you have an extremely one-sided view of the history of religion. A dogmatically one-sided view. You ignore the influence of religion on Renaissance to Industrial Age science -- how it led people to ask, "How did God wrought the universe." You ignore the influence of even Islam on preserving the maths and sciences of the ancient Greeks after the fall of Rome. Instead, religion is nothing more than superstition, irrationality, and the elevation of positions born from ignorance in your eyes. Ignore Newton. Ignore Mendel. Ignore Ibn al-Haytham. It's all just suicide bombers and Inquisitions, isn't it?

But that's okay. You're a "critical thinker." You're wisdom is inherently superior to the ignorant skeptics of your positions. Why, you're so righteous and wise in your beliefs that you presume to lecture a Muslim on the Qu'ran, a book with which is almost certainly more familiar than you. But don't let logic get in the way of the bitter, bile-filed diatribe that is born from your enlightened "critical thinking." After all, the guy who studies the book every week at his mosque is obviously the one arguing from a position of dogmatic ignorance here.

Re:Dogma meets Bile-Filled Irony.

[Bombula]

Anyone who thinks that critical thinking happens in the absence of unprovable postulates has never done any critical thinking. Everything from "I exist" to "Time flows" to "Cause and effect exists" to "The information my senses provide me is accurate and true" is just as much an unprovable (and impossible to disprove) assumption as "The universe has a first cause" or "We persist after death" or "All of this has meaning."

Nonsense. By your lights, critical thinking is in principle impossible given the existence of 'unprovable postulates'. "I exist" and "Time flows" and "Cause and effect exists" and "The information my senses provide me is accurate and true" are all testable and can all be corroborated with evidence. To the extent that they cannot 'really' be proven or known, which is to say the extent to which reality itself may be an illusion - a Matrix-style simulation, a dream, etc - is irrelevant because reality itself is the only context within which anything is meaningful. Within the context of what is real, the logic and consistency of evidence do matter insofar as they enable an understanding of how reality works. And by corollary, there is simply no such thing as 'outside the context of what is real'. If you disagree, I suggest you contemplate the fact that you are using a computer - a fantastically sophisticated testament to our ability to 'actually' understand reality - to write your comments. Your frittering crap about unprovable first principles is of no relevance.

You ignore the influence of religion on Renaissance to Industrial Age science -- how it led people to ask, "How did God wrought the universe." You ignore the influence of even Islam on preserving the maths and sciences of the ancient Greeks after the fall of Rome. Instead, religion is nothing more than superstition, irrationality, and the elevation of positions born from ignorance in your eyes

I made no claims about the historical significance of religion, nor of its functional utility. Believing in the toothfairy may have profoundly affected history, and it may be useful and meaningful to millions of people. That doesn't lend the slightest credence to the assertion that it is true. And that's the toothfairy. Last time a checked, no Toothfairyists were blowing up children with carbombs.

you presume to lecture a Muslim on the Qu'ran

Yes, I do. The problem with dogma is that it is blinding. The nonsensical rant from the Devout Believer I was responding to was a perfect testament to the power of dogma, and the need to dispel the blindness it causes with clear and critical thinking. And just in case you missed the memo, the "Argument from Authority" carries no weight in rational discourse: the fact that this guy is a Muslim is irrelevant. Or would you just as happily claim that all Christians in the redneck South are expert Biblical scholars simply by virtue of being Christian?

the guy who studies the book every week at his mosque is obviously the one arguing from a position of dogmatic ignorance here

If I studied Superman comic books every week, it wouldn't make them one iota more legitimate as a guide to building a civil society or as a guide to understanding reality. All of my criticism of the Quran stands.

Re:is it April 1?

[utopianfiat]

Islam is a young, viral religion. There was another young, viral religion which not but a millenia ago murdered people for centuries.
I'm just sad that people don't realize this idiotic religious tribalism brings us all to hell.

Re:

[DragonWriter]

Islam is a young, viral religion. There was another young, viral religion which not but a millenia ago murdered people for centuries.

Religions don't kill people, people kill people. Sometimes religious (or anti-religious, as in the sense of Leninism and its descendants) ideology is part of the excuse. "Young" doesn't seem to have much to do with it; people have been killed with Christianity and Judaism (or specific subsets of them) as part of the excuse a lot more recently than "a millenia ago" (and probabl

Re:is it April 1? ( Not Yet...)

[Joe_in_63640]

Submitted as Brain-Chow:
    I once was told in a Stats class that;

  " Among Lazy, Illiterate American Auto workers,
  that 40% of all sick time was taken on a Monday
  or a Friday". The class ( mostly) was dumbstruck.

    - Never stopping to think that 40% of every
American work week is a Monday or a Friday.

    The well had been poisoned, tho, and despite
the clarity of the punchline-like analysis, many
insisted on various faults, like unions, wage status,
etc.

    I feel pretty certain of two things -
    1. That we've been so conditioned by Big Media to
              the insidious Eevil of 'Terrorism' that it invokes
              a knee-jerk response of denial in any other view.

    2. Smart people make very good Engineers and very formidable
              enemies. You won't hear of Inept Terrorists in the news.
              Only the Smart Ones.

                                    - Just my $0.02

Re:is it April 1? ( Not Yet...)

[orclevegam]

Slight clarification about that last point. We do in fact seem to hear a lot about "Inept Terrorists" in the news, although the news never reports them as inept, rather they spin it as the brave efforts of the police narrowly avoiding massive catastrophe. Never mind the fact that the plan the morons had concocted was so bad they would at most hurt (or kill) themselves, and if they got really lucky a few bystanders. Good example was a recent case where some "terrorists" had loaded their cars up with cans of gasoline and then planned on lighting them on fire believing this would lead to massive explosions (this happened over in England btw). Anyone who knows about these types of things knows all you're going to get is a big hot fireball as the car burns down, and that's about it (might work if you had a proper fuel air mixture, but just dumping containers of gas in a car isn't going to cut it). So yeah, plenty of inept to go around.

Re:is it April 1? ( Not Yet...)

[Wanderer2]

Good example was a recent case where some "terrorists" had loaded their cars up with cans of gasoline and then planned on lighting them on fire believing this would lead to massive explosions (this happened over in England btw)

Pedantic correction but that was Glasgow Airport in Scotland [bbc.co.uk]. Not that everyone in the countries involved would see it as pedantic...

...but yes, a good example of very inept terrorists where the reporting made it seem as if the end of the world were nigh.

Re:

[Zeinfeld]

Slight clarification about that last point. We do in fact seem to hear a lot about "Inept Terrorists" in the news, although the news never reports them as inept, rather they spin it as the brave efforts of the police narrowly avoiding massive catastrophe.

All the terrorists are inept, that does not stop them from being dangerous. The second generation of the Baader-Meinhof gang was litteraly recruited from a lunatic asylum. Catching inept criminals is still very difficult.

The problem with the recent scar

The similarity in one word: pragmatism

[mr_mischief]

Engineers are well-known (by researchers, theorists, and others) as "get it done" types. They want to know as much theory as they need to make practical applications, and to make things that do something useful. As long as they're making progress, rough guidelines that take margins of error into account are as often as good as pure theory.

Terrorists are people who've decided to make people take notice of their views. They're not idealists who talk about people converting because they've come to accept what the terrorists see as truth. They want to get noticed and to get their message out to people. The media is an effective way to do that, if you can get the attention of the media. Blowing people up is a quick way to get in the news. Notice that the message spread by terrorists and the means of spreading it are often condemned by others wanting to spread a similar but more peaceful message, yet it's hard to deny who gets their message to a wider audience. It's much more common to hear "join Islam or die", "join the Communist Party or rot in jail", or "love America or leave it" than to hear "if you'll pray with us, you might see Mohammed was right", "it's better for us all if we're all communists, please take this pamphlet and consider it", or "this is the land of the free, the home of the brave, and the place where it should be safe to dissent", even though there are peaceful and considerate Mulsims, Commmunists, and Americans. (I'm an American and I love my country, but I think we have not only a right but a duty to be heard when we have a grievance against our leaders -- that's what the country was founded on!)

Much of what terrorists do requires skills most people don't have. Making a reliable suicide vest takes skill. Aiming an aircraft at a skyscraper was not something left to chance, but something the hijackers trained for in actual flight schools. Terrorist paramilitary camps exist to train people in how to fight with tactics developed over generations. Those who want to be effective terrorists appreciate that an engineering degree in chemical engineering is probably a good way to learn about explosives and poisons. Those who want to write software for their cause need to know how just as those who write software for other reasons do. They need to know how buildings are supported to bring them down more effectively, just as professional and peaceful demolitions crews do. These people take engineering degrees or go to flight school or training camp because they have made the pragmatic decision that it suits their ends.

So really, yeah, I can see it. Engineers do what they need to do to build buildings, bridges, computer processors, new plastics with better impact resistance, or cars with better safety ratings. Terrorists do what they need to do if their goal is killing, maiming, and getting noticed. Both are very goal-oriented, and very pragmatic. Being effective at terror often takes some engineering skills, which reinforces some of the correlations.

All of does mean that someone who's a terrorist might be lead to study engineering. It doesn't mean that people studying engineering are any more likely to become terrorists than they otherwise would be.

I'm sure most of the Muslim people studying engineering are studying it for professional reasons, too. We have wackos in the West who were good at destruction because of their education and training (for example Ted Kaczynski, Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, Michael Swango, Josef Mengele, Richard Angelo, Charles Cullen, Kristen Gilbert, Stephan Letter, Christine Malevre, Norbert Poehlke, Beverly Allitt) many of whom have been nurses or physicians. That doesn't mean someone who's studied electronics, pyrotechnics, or medicine in the US or Europe is going to be a serial killer or mass murderer. The same is true of the Middle East.

Actually, another reason is applicability. People don't study American business law to take back to Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and Indonesia, because the laws aren't the same. Engineering is largely transfe

Re:

[Naughty Bob]

I think that the conclusions of this study are too sweeping (or they've been 'sexed-up' to generate more interest). But you make no effort to explain the over-representation of 'graduates in science, engineering, and medicine' in the extremist groups.

I have an engineer-type mindset, and when I believe something, I really believe it. I have always figured that it was because my engineery thought patterns, and the corresponding deductions I make about life in general, give me a set of well reasoned, watertig

Re:is it April 1?

[alcmaeon]

From reading the article, it seems to me Diego and Steve [yeah, sounds like a gay disco duo] have never met parents from the Middle East. Basically, a kids has one of two choices about higher education: medicine or engineering. This is so prevalent, it is a joke among the relevant demographic. Now, me, I'm shocked that theatre majors seem to be underrepresented in "Islamist groups."

This is just sociologist revenge, not April 1

[Crazy Taco]

I'm guessing this article was supposed to be released April 1, but someone jumped the gun. That said, it's not even a very funny joke.

I think the more likely explanation is that this is an attempt by sociologists to get revenge for all the times they were told in college that sociology isn't a real major, sociology isn't a true or hard science, etc. Being an engineer myself, I happen to agree with that assessment, but perhaps the sociologists are getting the last laugh. :p

...... Unless of course we all really do have a terrorist mindset. In that case, publishing such an offensive article was a gross miscalculation on their part! :D <sarcastic news flash> Everywhere across the nation, engineers begin to dust off their bomb building kits, preparing to take on the evil forces of sociology</sarcasm> :D

MOD PARENT DOWN.

[Socguy]

Why is this modded insightful? While the parent obviously disagrees with the research paper, he has offered no relevant criticism of the paper other than to make a couple ad hominem style attacks on the paper.

is it pop psychology(?)
this first would have to lend credence that the thesis warrants comparison to psychology in any way, let alone "pop" psychology which tends to be a few rungs down from the imprimatur of truly researched psychology. It isn't. It's not even close.

masquerading(?)
You bet! No matter what this is trying to be in any genuine sense other than phooey, it's masquerading.

And a personal anecdote (under the category of science no less.)

science(?)
Not a chance. Anecdotally I would expect to be able to be able to think of a number of fellow engineers who match the description and thesis. I'm not sure I can even think of a single example. I can think of some peers from the past who I may describe as of a similar mindset, but those I would hardly describe as real engineers.

While the parent is certainly entitled to have and express his opinions, the parent has made no real insightful contribution to the discussion because the parent neglected to include any evidence to support his statements. Therefore, the parent should be modded down, at least until such time that he more fully supports his assertions.

Re:is it April 1?

[gnick]

About 1/4-1/3 of my EE graduate school was comprised of Indians/Pakistanis here in the US to study. They were great - Other than a strange obsession with Cricket, perfectly agreeable folks. However, there was another 1/4-1/3 here to study from China that were much harder to get along with. They refused to speak English except with the professors and had posters of Mao along with his poetry all over the half of the graduate-student office that they dominated. I don't want to sound xenophobic, but it was very strange.

Re:is it April 1?

[Alsee]

Other than a strange obsession with Cricket

Damn foriegners and their freaky strange obsessions.
Ooooo! Gotta run..... I think Brittney shaved her head again!

-

Re:is it April 1?

[russ1337]

They refused to speak English except with the professors and had posters of Mao along with his poetry all over the half of the graduate-student office that they dominated. I don't want to sound xenophobic, but it was very strange.

I'm sure if you were studying in China you'd be speaking English to your American friends and you'd have big posters of Bush in the Student office with lists of his famous quotes... [wikiquote.org] .... right? right?


oh wait.

Re:is it April 1?

[gnick]

I'm sure if you were studying in China you'd be speaking English to your American friends

It didn't bother me at all that they spoke their native language with each other. What was strange was that they refused to talk with the other students. They would literally act like they didn't know English unless they were speaking with the profs.

Re:is it April 1?

[ScrewMaster]

Well, a few years ago I came across a park with a big outdoor party going on, full of Chinese engineers and engineering students. They seemed to be having a good time, and I thought about walking over to see what it was all about. Then I noticed the big sign saying "Chinese Only!"

The truth is that the thousands of Chinese students are here for one reason, and one reason only: to pick our brains, and suck all the oxygen out of higher education in the United States (every U.S. student that can't find a spot because a Chinese student took it is to China's advantage.) They have no interest in having anything whatsoever to do with American culture ... well, any that do are probably too afraid to try. So don't expect too much.

Re:

[ScrewMaster]

No offense, but it seems like you're going for the +5 "All Chinese suck because {insert generalization here}" mod.

Yeah, I figured someone would take it that way. I'm just commenting on what I've observed, and what people who've been in the grad school system recently have told me. I'm not particularly bigoted (other than that I don't like assholes in general) but let's face a little reality here: China's government is out to extract every ounce of useful information from us. They're doing that by floodin

Re:

[ScrewMaster]

Huh? Hard-won knowledge should not be for sale to an inimical foreign power, particularly when it comes at the expense of our own people. To give you an example, I know a Ph.D whose degree is in materials science. The materials science curriculum was swamped with Chinese students, somehow a Chinese national managed to get the job of Dean of the school, and he would take year-long sabbaticals to China (paid for by the American taxpayer!) to recruit more Chinese students. There were so many that they were squ

Re:is it April 1?

[Johnboi Waltune]

A lot of these Chinese students have been taught all their lives that Americans are barbarians, decadent, corrupt, etc,etc... From their point of view, they have been sent into a hostile environment to get an education, and then return to the PRC to use their knowledge to help their country get ahead of the US. Some of the Indians are that way too when they first get to the US. It's part culture shock and part xenophobia. They are the ones with the problem, not you.

A lot of them get over it once they've been exposed to our culture and people for a while, and they realize what they were told before coming to the US is just one side of the story.

Re:is it April 1?

[siufish]

Your description about Chinese would be right if it's still 30-40 years ago. Now no one still believes the propaganda. In fact, the reason so many Chinese want to go to college in the US is because they think they can get a better education here. The way you put it sounds like they're sent here on a mission, like the terrorists; they're not.

China doesn't have a monopoly on propaganda.

Re:

[mikael]

There was an accidental social experiment that once happened some time ago (I don't know if this story is true or not). But one time, the booking system for campus rooms broke down. The admin staff do all they can to get everyone their own room. Over the following weeks, everyone starts reorganising themselves into groups based on course subject; musicians in one block, art students in another, and science students in yet another. It's not really racism or discrimination, people just prefer to be closer to

Re:

[urcreepyneighbor]

A lot of these Chinese students have been taught all their lives that Americans are barbarians, decadent, corrupt, etc,etc...

Which is largely true.

Most American's are obsessed with idiotic physical competitions, are in debt up to their ass to pay for toys they don't need, and haven't ever lost sleep over the Fermi paradox.

Don't get me wrong, please. I love America and the idea of America, I simply have a problem with most of the people occupying the land itself. :)

Some of the Indians are that way too when they first get to the US. It's part culture shock and part xenophobia.

Speaking strictly from personal experience, most Indian's - dots, not feathers - have been some of the most adaptable people I've known. Again, personal experience.

Th

Re:is it April 1?

[Lost Engineer]

Don't get me wrong, please. I love America and the idea of America, I simply have a problem with most of the people occupying the land itself.

Sounds more like misanthropy to me. I can't say I like most Americans either, but I'm not convinced I'd magically like my neighbors if I moved somewhere else.

Re:

[mapkinase]

I do not know about India or China, but in Soviet Russia (where I am from) the anti-American propaganda worked in this way: they basically told us more or less the truth (which I verified later) about bad stuff in US, like US indeed turned out to have more unimployed or homeless people compare to what we had in Soviet Russia.

But what they never told us is all this good stuff about US which basically is much more rational organization in all aspects life: government, economy, religion, relationships, freedom

Re:

[cozziewozzie]

A lot of these Chinese students have been taught all their lives that Americans are barbarians, decadent, corrupt, etc,etc... From their point of view, they have been sent into a hostile environment to get an education, and then return to the PRC to use their knowledge to help their country get ahead of the US. Some of the Indians are that way too when they first get to the US. It's part culture shock and part xenophobia. They are the ones with the problem, not you.

This hasn't been my experience at all. It seems to me that you are the one who is xenophobic.

With most Chinese people, it is a combination of finding it difficult to adjust to a very different culture, and trying really hard to finish their education, as their families probably invested their life savings into it.

Most Chinese people who come over to study are very good students who got where they are through extreme studying in a ridiculously competitive environment. The parties in China are very different

Re:is it April 1?

[rahvin112]

Almost everyone in the middle east gets a higher education degree. They study and get their degrees and in their mid-20's they graduate without the ability to go to anymore school and NO JOB PROSPECTS. An inability to support their family drives them to religion and in some cases extremism where they blame all the problems in the middle east on not being religious enough (not pleasing god), or blame all the problems in the middle east on external forces. The problems in the middle east are economic. You have essentially a very small group that lives extravagantly using oil money and the rest of the population struggles to get by with no real jobs or careers that take advantage of their advanced degrees. The one exception seems to be the emirate of Dubai who actually appears to be starting a real economy.

Until there is real social and economic changes in the middle east the countries will continue to breed extremists, because people without prospects for the future will always cause trouble. Saudi is the prime example but Iran is as well, the religious leaders live extremely well, probably in the top 5% economically in the country while the poor people in the villages in the outer reaches freeze to death in a snow storm. Until there is real economic freedom and equal justice for all the area is for the most part a lost cause. Run the oil wealth out and the countries won't be able to provide the minimal support their populations need to survive and then there will be real change.

Re:

[Stoutlimb]

What happened to outright expulsion after the first instance of cheating? Isn't that what's normally done?

Re:scientiststendtobeliberals

[SnapShot]

I'm not so sure about that. Many of us like our NIH, DoD, DoE, or univeristy grants. Many of us would be for a new orbiting space telescope, or a new Internet backbone (that isn't all filled up with random commercial crap and pr0n), or a manned trip to Mars, or a new super-collider, or a thousand other basic science projects that corporations are less likely to fund.

I'm sure there are some scientists who are libertarian enough to only work for corporations that are not receiving subsidies from the government, but I doubt it's the majority.

Re:scientiststendtobeliberals

[node 3]

Yeah, *that* doesn't sound like a fundamentalist mindset.

Anyone who takes an idea and expands to into a universal absolute (with the exception of a few situations where this is reasonable, such as in math and physics) is a fundamentalist. That's what the Islamic terrorists are doing, is what strong libertarians do (which you appear to be, although you could be an objectivist--yet another form of fundamentalism).

That's not to equate the evilness of all forms of fundamentalism, but merely to compare the mindset, which seems quite reasonable.

As for engineers having that mindset, reading any form of geek site, it seems like there's a lot of fundamentalism among this group. GNU, the FSF, and much of Open Source shows *strong* signs of fundamentalism.

Comparing engineers with terrorists is just sensationalism, but noting the level of fundamentalism among engineers, at least on the surface, seems worth investigating.

Re:scientiststendtobeliberals

[node 3]

I'm not sure exactly what you are getting at, but:

But if you believe in equality of outcome (ie. you believe everybody should not have the same chances, but the same amount of money), then you can't believe in motive. So you *have* to believe in means.

is not true at all in any way whatsoever.

One does not have to "believe" fully in one idea or another. Sometimes equality of outcome is important, sometimes equality of opportunity is important, sometimes *inequality* is important.

Sometimes it's the means which matter most, sometimes is the motive. Sometimes it's the ends. Or any combination thereof.

To take your examples, guns *do* kill people (the literally-minded might chime in that it's the bullet, but pedantry aside, the point stands). People kill people. Both statements are true. Some people with a gun are *more* likely to kill someone. Some people with a gun are *less* likely to kill someone. To take any side of the argument as an absolute (i.e., fundamentalism) is foolish, because it contradicts reality (the key flaw in fundamentalism and extremism).

Your other example, of the opposition to nuclear power further illuminates this point. There's no single reason behind most things. To elevate one reason above all others is, almost always, counter-productive, because it's counter-reality.

I don't know exactly what those examples really have to do with what I wrote before, since I stated that equating engineers with terrorists is silly. On the other hand, the apparent tendency towards fundamentalism (not *Islamic* fundamentalism, nor terrorist fundamentalism, just some (often relatively benign) form of fundamentalism, even if it's just emacs vs. vi) among engineer-types is worth looking into. There may be nothing there, but even a cursory familiarity with slashdot gives the impression that there's *something* to the notion.

Personally, I think it has to do with engineers being very literal-minded (hence all the grammar nazi's and people whose pet peeves are something as silly as when people say, "I could care less"), and also above-average in intelligence (or at least in thoughtfulness), which sort of works off each other leading to strong opinions about the way things should be. For the engineer, the ideals tend to be technical (i.e., which is the best way to write a program, what's the proper way to phrase a sentence, what exactly is the way to measure the Kessel Run, etc.). For the jihadists, the ideals are theological. It seems like fundamentalism is something innate to humans which certain external and internal forces can amplify. It also seems fairly clear that fundamentalism never seems to lead to good ends (except in the very rare cases where a concept truly does appear universally valid, such as with math and physics), so it's worthwhile to study it in situations where it arises, both in its most evil forms, and in its more benign.

Re:

[node 3]

While I agree with your general statement about human nature, I think that FSF-style fundamentalism is quite distinct from sports fans or brand loyalists. FSF-style fundamentalism starts from a specific logical premise and seeks to mold the world to match those premises. It pretends to be logical. Sports fans and brand loyalists do not tend to come to their conclusions as the end of a series of logical steps.

BTW, I don't mean to pick on the FSF specifically (I'm quite sympathetic to their ideals), they are

Re:scientiststendtobeliberals

[FredFnord]

> Slashdot Libertarianism is mostly hypocritical anarchism

Naw. It's mostly totally unselfconscious, unexamined selfishness combined with a sort of odd belief in 'freedom' that is so strong that it basically amounts to belief in predestination. ("Everyone has absolute choice in everything that happens to them, so therefore it's obvious that everyone deserves exactly what they are getting. Except me, because I deserve more.")

-fred

Re:scientiststendtobeliberals

[Your.Master]

I'm not so sure about that. Slashdotters tend to be libertarians. Scientists in general are often in favour of government funding for research projects, and my anecdotal evidence is that most engineers I met were into public healthcare and so forth. I mean, it's all efficiency optimizations, and the free market does not optimize for perfect efficiency because people are not perfectly rational and trustworthy actors (of course, command economies do not optimize either for exactly the same reasons).

Interrogated: Welcome to the New America!

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

From the "Stolen Bikes Ride Faster" Blog. DHS deletes a research scientists' blog posts - then send in the goons to interrogate him for six hours:

As many of you now know, I was recently detained and questioned by the FBI [typepad.com] regarding several posts on this blog. Two of the posts in question were first altered, then removed all together, by what appeared to be the Dept. of Homeland Security. I've been thinking about how to describe this experience. Last night, I talked briefly about what happened and why in an e-mail to Rich over at The New Freedom [thenewfreedom.net]. He's got a great site over there, by the way. I've decided that that e-mail is probably about as thorough as I care to be regarding my little adventure, at least for now. Here's the copy that I sent him - I invite all of you to read it for yourselves:

Hey Rich, just wanted to follow up on your comment on my blog and the post on yours. My name's Rob, by the way, hi, nice to meet you. Apparently, I actually did upset a few people with some of the information I posted. This resulted in an involuntary trip to the local FBI offices. Didn't even know they were in town - guess they're everywhere these days.
        So from what I gathered in our conversation (if you can call it that - it was a bit one-sided), a couple of things set them off. They've got some tracking software sorting through everything out there, looking for certain keywords. If it picks up a keyword, you get put on a list and monitored. I got flagged the first time as a result of my post on Canada placing the US on its terror watch list. Among other things, mention of Guantanamo, Afghanistan, torture, and terrorism set the software off.
        A couple of posts later, I did a parody of an interview with al-Quaeda representative Ayman al-Zawahri. This seemed to set them off, too. They wanted to know what my connections were to the group - I guess they were obligated to ask. The thing that really got them in that article was an offhand remark about the weaponization of smallpox based on some work an Australian research group did with mousepox. Here's a link to the research:

sciencedirect article

You may need a subscription to view it, I'm not sure. Anyway, I assumed that this was pretty common knowledge. Of course, I also work in biomedical chemistry, so I guess I hear some things the general public doesn't. They were really freaked out about this. Don't blame them - if you've got some time, pick up Ken Alibeck's (sp?) book on the supposedly now-defunct Russian bioterrorism program. But that's a story for another day.
        The stuff about homegrown terrorism was the last straw, they said. I guess posting instructions for some lame explosives along with criticism of HR1955 pissed them off. They decided to teach me a lesson by first censoring, then removing the offending blog post. They figured that if I was posting stuff like this, it was only a matter of time before I moved on to more complex agents, based on my education and employment background. It took me about six and a half hours to convince these assholes that I'm not a terrorist. I am certain I'm on every watch list they've got now. Not looking forward to my next trip to the airport, that's for damn sure.
        I guess that's about it. I appreciate your concern, and the fact that you're spreading the word - people definitely need to know about this. But standing up for your rights on paper is one thing; it's a different story when they come knocking on your door and give you the opportunity to do it in person. A word of caution: this shit is real. Do what you can to stay off of that list, man. I'm sure that it was just an odd series of coincidences that sent them my way, but better to be safe. Anyhow, I'm probably going to post briefly in the next day or two, once I have time to organize my thoughts, and then stick to the fiction from here on out. Well, let me know if you have any more questions, and keep doing what you're doing.

Re:

[dbIII]

I'm not so sure about that. Slashdotters tend to be libertarians

Those of us who are not in the USA really do not know what that means despite many efforts to explain it and the "anarchists that want the government to protect them from their slaves" cracks that I hope are way off the mark.

Re:

[TheCarp]

I am a liberal one and I disagree. I see liberalism or religiosity as orthogonal to the issue. I would say that the engineer mindset is one that is adaptable to many realms.

I think it comes down to fundamental assumptions. I disagree on a fundamental level with a lot of terrorists. However, I have to say, if I believed some of the core things they believe, I would support the actions they take.

Its a matter of putting a mind to a problem. My fundamental assumptions are that people should be allowed to determ

Engineer's Syndrome

[Goaway]

You could probably draw parallels to Engineer's Syndrome [google.com] here.

How sociologists do science

[Anonymous Coward]

Take a frog, and yell JUMP!
The frog jumps.

Now, cut off one of its legs and yell JUMP!
The frog jumps, but not as far.

Now, cut off the other leg and yell JUMP!
The frog does not jump.

Conclusion: The amputee frog is deaf.
Abstract: For centuries, science has been mystified by how frogs hear without ears. Our recent work has at last resolved this long standing mystery by showing that in frogs, the ability to hear is closely correlated to the number of legs present on the frog. The hearing organ's location in the frog's legs explains the absence of any ears at their expected location. In future studies, we will determine if the frog's hearing apparatus is in fact located on the frog's feet, as is suspected from their ear-like morphology.

Why not?

[Shadow Wrought]

Many of the engineers I've known in college were absolutely convinced of tehir superiority and absolute rightness in all things. Certainly not all, but a fair chunk. Same with Fundamentalism. To a certain extent its still trying to change the world instead of yourself.

Re:Why not?

[zulater]

I think there's a bit of a difference in "I'm always right" as opposed to "I'm going to kill those that don't think like me". Though IANATerrorist.

Re:

[The Mighty Buzzard]

Engineers are, by nature, problem solvers. All it takes is for them to start seeing people who don't think like them as a problem and the solution is obvious. They can either change the thinking of said people or stop them from thinking at all. The latter is far easier and has a proven track record of working.

Re:

[somersault]

Don't you think that 'science, engineering and medicine' graduates is quite a wide range of people? This study could just as well end up with the conclusion "arts students or those without higher education aren't motivated enough to be terrorists", or "would be terrorists that don't have scientific knowledge tend to blow themselves up before they can get anywhere in the world of terror".

PS if you fucking disagree with me I'm going to fucking mailbomb all your fucking email addresses and DDoS your remaini

Re:

[Goaway]

The authors have found that graduates in subjects such as science, engineering, and medicine are strongly overrepresented among Islamist movements in the Muslim world. The authors also note that engineers, alone, are strongly over-represented among graduates who gravitate to violent groups.

Re:Why not?

[MrMarket]

You could also say: "Men without girlfriends are over represented in terrorist groups."

Re:

[jimicus]

You could also say: "Men without girlfriends are over represented in terrorist groups."


This is actually one of the ideas about terrorism's root causes.

Broadly speaking, the theory states that the culture in some Middle Eastern countries doesn't like baby girls (for whatever reason - perhaps women get married and look after the husband and his family, so parents with a lot of girls may not have anyone to look after them in their dotage, perhaps the bride's family is expected to pay a hefty dowry), and aborti

Re:

[KublaiKhan]

I suppose I could see that. Engineers do tend to try to put things into precise terms--black and white, right and wrong, within tolerances and unacceptable. This is similar to fundamentalist views of the world, in a way...

Engineers?

[SerpentMage]

Ok let's see Engineers are suspect to Terrorism because they view things as right and wrong.

Assuming that this is the truth, that then puts ANYBODY WITH ANY IQ in the sciences and math as potential terrorists! So let's not stop at engineers, but head on over to physicists, and math folks.

Oh wait, maybe this is a bigger and badder idea... What if this is a way to eradicate the "intelligent."

Think hard about this. Who does any dictator knock off first? Oh yeah the intelligent and who can think for themselves.... Gee let's make engineers the scape goats and suspects here...

Come on people do we see the boggieman at every corner...

Think about why maybe many immigrants are engineers. Could it be because engineers can get visa's and jobs here? Maybe its because visa's are not given out to basketweavers!

Re:Why not?

[gnick]

Many of the engineers I've known in college were absolutely convinced of tehir [sic] superiority and absolute rightness in all things.

I suspect that's part of the issue. I'm an EE with a long-standing history of blowing stuff up. That said, I now work primarily trying to keep stuff from blowing up (or at least blowing up in some controlled environment.) Engineers make good terrorist candidates. They tend to:
* Be intelligent and educated (Or if not intelligent, obsessive enough to make it through a tough school-path)
* Have superiority complexes ("I know what's right and all differing opinions are wrong and should be corrected")
* Be good problem solvers ("If I wanted to get around this security system, here's what I'd do...")
* Know everything necessary to make good bombs

Superiority Complex

[raygundan]

I'm not sure it's a superiority complex, but the end result is awfully similar. Engineers are one of the few subsets of people that are in active control of changing the world around them. It's what they do for a living. They think about a problem, come up with a way to implement a solution, and then build it.

I don't think they believe they're superior-- but when an engineer decides one way or the other about an issue, he sets out to do something about it. A lot of people are content to hold a viewpoint but go on about their business, but it has always seemed to me that an engineer with a viewpoint on an issue that he won't back down from is simply doing what engineers do. He's thought about a problem, looked at his limited options, and is pursuing the solution his believes is correct.

This mindset, however, is not common. Most people, when confronted with an issue (even one they strongly feel needs to change) that is outside their ability to control, will simply go about their lives. The engineer, although similarly powerless to enact change in, say, global politics, will do the only things he can, like annoy everybody around him trying to convince them to see his viewpoint. They try to think rationally, and they believe when they've reached a conclusion that other people could be convinced rationally to see their viewpoint. Again, this is what they do day-in and day-out at work, convincing co-workers to choose a particular design path on purely rational merits. It just doesn't map to the messy grey-area that makes up normal life with irrational people.

(none of this is peer-reviewed, and was made up on the spot, and may or may not match your experiences.)

Re:

[raygundan]

I agree with you completely. The "problem-solver" mindset has two serious real-world limitations: nobody is an expert on everything (even after careful thought), and not every problem is within your capability to solve no matter how much effort you put into it.

Clearly any rational person would see that annoying everyone is not the way to convince anything or anybody.

Yes and no. They address "normal" people just like they would other engineers. "Here's my idea, here's my reasoning, here's my conclusion."

Re:

[moderatorrater]

A lot of the reason for this is that engineers live and work in a world where 1+1=2, and everything follows a similarly, objectively correct principle. Whereas when you deal with religion or human behavior, 1+1=2 in some cases, 1+1=3 for high values of 1, and 1+1=-9 when you're dealing with another continent. The Americans likes one all powerful God who knows everything, but lets us live our lives as we see fit. The Japanese like their ancestors to be in charge, Indians tend to like a lot of Gods who have h

Re:

[gnick]

A+B=C is a "rule", just as "obey god" is

I'm not sure that it's fair to equate an engineer's "rules" with a religious fundamentalist's "rules". Engineers have models of how stuff works. They use those models as appropriate and adjust them when necessary per a new situation or acquisition of new data.

I live in Newton's world even though I know that his "rules" are a little flawed. I occasionally need to visit Einstein's world because I'm doing something weird. No problem. However, if Newton's world were written in scripture, then any situatio

Re:

[Grishnakh]

I think what they have in common is both rigidity (eg, A+B=C is a "rule", just as "obey god" is as well) as well as a willingness to follow everything to its logical conclusion (eg, C=B-A and "obey god, god says infidels should die, therefore kill them").

I'm an engineer, and I definitely follow this. This is why I'm against religion.

In my view, the fundamentalists of every religion are the correct ones. The "moderates" are wrong, because they're picking and choosing which parts of their holy texts to beli

Engineer and Terrorist are slightly similar.

[binaryspiral]

Engineer's mindset: "What makes this thing tick"

Terrorist's mindset: "I know why this thing is ticking"

Re:Engineer and Terrorist are slightly similar.

[aproposofwhat]

Sociologist's mindset: "What completely obvious statement can I make about this ticking thing?"

Re:

[techpawn]

IT Mindset: "Why did this start ticking? I'll just reboot it, maybe it will stop..."

Re:Engineer and Terrorist are slightly similar.

[geminidomino]

Liberal Arts Mindset: "If they make me clean out the fry vats again, I'm gonna burn this fucking place down..."

Re:

[TheRaven64]

More to the point, engineers, when confronted with a problem, tend to find the most direct solution to the problem. If the problem is 'the Caliphate needs to be restored,' or 'some people in the world are not Muslims and everyone should be' then the most direct situation involves blowing people up.

"more extreme conservative and religious positions

[trolltalk.com]

the 'engineering mindset,' which they define as 'a mindset that inclines them to take more extreme conservative and religious positions.'

All I can say is, thank god I'm an atheist!

Re:"more extreme conservative and religious positi

[Hatta]

Except that atheism is kind of an extreme position in itself. It takes a person with a big head to look at the 95% of the earth's population that believes in a supreme being and declare them all delusional.

I guess I have a pretty big head.

Terrorist? No, I'm from Mars.

[Dr. Eggman]

We engineers aren't the most proactive types, we tend to sit next to the flag, banging away on our defenses and designing new weapons in our heads. Oh, and watching out for those dog-gone spies.

That makes sense

[danbert8]

It's all becoming clear now. A lot of Islamic terrorists are engineers. That explains why they have no infrastructure over there... The engineers are too busy killing themselves to build a society. Boy I'm glad my engineering degree will be put to better use than suicide.

That required Circuits course for ME's

[Latent Heat]

It's that mandatory Circuits course that the mechanical engineers and others outside EE are required to take is what is breeding terrorists, I tell you. Requiring MEs to learn op amps is what is giving them that sour outlook on life.

Useful degrees

[aproposofwhat]

Well, it's not surprising that people studying useful subjects are overrepresented among Islamists in the UK.

After all, who wants a sociologist in their terror cell?

More to the point, people studying proper subjects are more likely to encounter Islamists from other countries on their courses and to be influenced by them - since nobody is going to travel all the way from Iraq/Iran/Saudi/<insert hotbed of radicalism here> to study complete bollocks like sociology or any of the other pap degrees offered, it's no wonder that there aren't too many Islamist sociology and psychology students.

Probably True

[pinkocommie]

I'm from Pakistan and would be willing to guess that this is true. The issue primarily why these results would exist is the concept of fine arts etc aren't as common in most 3rd world countries. In pakistan for example the revered professions are Medicine and Engineering. The best and brightest always gravitate towards those (top 500 out of 50K candidates get into the main tech university in Karachi).
In any case, I'm willing to bet these are also the minds that go hmm there are problems with our society that need to be solved. One could probably divvy up these people into those that leave the country, those that stick behind and those that turn to religion for answers and eventually rise among the ranks of extremists etc.
Terrorism vs extremism isn't as finely delineated as Bush et. al would like to make it out to be. If one could fix the issue of social injustice and lack of opportunities / education I'm willing to bet most of these problems will go away as well.

Re:

[Otter]

If one could fix the issue of social injustice and lack of opportunities / education I'm willing to bet most of these problems will go away as well.

I'm not sure I follow your last bit of reasoning there. If anything, the fact that groups like al-Qaeda (run by an engineer and a physician) and Hamas (run by a physicist who succeeded a physician) are led by the most educated members of local society tends to argue against poverty and lack of education as key causes of terrorism. Same thing on a country level

Re:

[pinkocommie]

Sorry, shouldn't have included that on there, was somewhat off topic. But in any case my point wasn't just education but social justice. The issue is when things go off-balance beyond a certain degree where one can quite plainly see the injustices around them (even if they themselves aren't a target) people begin to rise up and say enough. Different people react differently and try to bring about change differently. But as other people said intelligent people have a higher probability of moving forward with

The real cause

[DoofusOfDeath]

Is that these groups often have R&D schedules adjusted by marketing majors. Hell, going through that a few times would radicalize my pet hamster.

The Engineer

[Raul654]

One of the foremost terrorists in the history of the middle east was Yahaya Ayyash [wikipedia.org], an electrical engineer (educated at Beir Ziet University) who built bombs for Hamas's Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades. His bombs ended up killing over 100 civilians (mostly Israeli, but also Americans and other Westerners in Israel) and dozens of soldiers, ambulance workers, and other first responders.

Re:The Engineer

[aproposofwhat]

Another leading terrorist was Menachim Begin, who was a lawyer. His Irgun group were responsible for the bombing of the King David Hotel [wikipedia.org], and for several massacres of Arab villages after the establishment of the Zionist state.

Your point was what, exactly?

Re:The Engineer

[Raul654]

Ayyash's bombs were quite intentionally designed to kill as many people as possible (they were packed with nails and other shrapnel - and laced with rat poison - to ensure maximum lethality). The Irgun made it a point to minimize the casualties from their bombings - they called the King David hotel ahead and time and warned people to get out.

Re:

[Alsee]

(note: the first half of this post is a direct reply to the parent post, but I kind of wandered and vented some annoyance I had at another poster I recently read and at the general mid-east conflict. the last half is not particularly directed at the parent.)

Perhaps it's a matter of selectively killing. Bombing a hotel would kill a lot of people of various nationalities and relgious affiliations.

So they kill only arabs, and when it comes to arabs, not selectively either. That speaks to me as no better than r

Obligatory

[Pojut]

http://xkcd.com/319/ [xkcd.com]
http://xkcd.com/253/ [xkcd.com]

Anyone have a link to the one that is done in a "vertical" layout?

Bunch a Dr. Phil level junk

[binaryDigit]

Yes, it's absolutely a bunch of pop-psy junk.

And I will summon Allah's hand to strike down any infidels that disagree!

Now back to coding ...

Re:

[rubycodez]

engineers are allowed to get laid and view porn, but muslim extremists aren't. and therein lies the difference

I think they may be on to something...

[ThomasFlip]

This is what another authority on scientific minds thinks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WynH9nJuSuk [youtube.com] (Pat Robertson)

Must be graduates of Trans Poly U.

[strredwolf]

Ahh yes, they must be alumni of Transylvania Polytechnic University (or Trans Poly U). Everyone wants to rule the world. So... Scroll down to pick up an MP3 of their fight song curdosy of Tom Smith [tomsmithonline.com] and sing along! (lyrics [tomsmithonline.com]) Cheer cheer for Trans Poly U...

Immigration restrictions

[zmooc]

It should be noted that due to US immigration restrictions, 80% of muslims migrating to the US are highly educated. Engineers. This should somehow skew the results.

Were I live, in the Netherlands, only 30% of the muslim immigrants are highly educated (the rest is practically completely uneducated...); if you'd do the same test in the Nederlands, you might find morons have a terrorist mindset;-)

monism

[$RANDOMLUSER]

...they pointed out that a disproportionate share of engineers seem to have a mindset that makes them open to the quintessential right-wing features of "monism" (why argue where there is one best solution) and by "simplism" (if only people were rational, remedies would be simple).

Duh!! There's only one Right Thing®

Just pop psychology masquerading as science?

[Presto Vivace]

Sure sounds that way.

ESR

[emj]

http://catb.org/~esr/guns/ [catb.org]

I guess I'm an idiot for this

So what?

[gnuman99]

So what?

If the criminals and terrorists are either "uneducated hoards" or someone with some education, I'd expect someone in science to do a "better job" as a criminal than the "uneducated hoards" or someone with a fine arts degree. One of the tasks you learn in *real* science (what the pseudo-scientists here don't seem to grasp) is the ability to plan ahead. Yes, plan ahead. Therefore maybe criminals and terrorists with some science background will get further in their game than square 1.

Furthermore, maybe people that want to get "ahead" in their criminal organizations enter college to gain education in the material that they will find useful. You know, an engineer or a chemist may be a more useful profession for them than a poet.

But then what will these pseudo-scientists find next in their statistics? That some of the non-science terrorists/criminals like to play chess or other strategy games? Or that they are fanatics *before* starting their university education?

75% of people know these statistics are bogus 19 times out of 20.

extreme beliefs

[pyphil]

I always thought that those with degrees in science, medicine and engineering were overrepresented within the realm of atheist or agnostic belief frameworks. I guess we cant go without forming a very strong opinion about the universe around us.

Or maybe...

[susano_otter]

Or maybe it's that Engineers are recruited more aggressively than liberal arts majors because likely to bring useful skills and a concrete, analytical mindset to the mission.

The better question is

[Travoltus]

do terrorists have an ENGINEER mindset?

Terrorism requires the knowledge to bypass security and/or blow stuff up.

To do that, you need engineers. Otherwise all you get is a bunch of talkers, not doers, or at least doers who blow themselves up more often, and who fail to even reach their targets.

What this means is, your average engineer does not have a terrorist mindset, but terrorist groups must recruit engineers in order to Get Stuff Circumvented/Done[tm]. So they recruit engineers as often as they can, because otherwise they cannot Get Stuff Circumvented/Done[tm].

There you have it.

[fstolze]

This clearly underlines why math, science and engineering must be eradicated from the US educational system.

Doesn't fit the profile

[ianchaos]

Many of the terrorists which have been part of the popular news media the last few years have had the eventual goal of creating a very structured and ordered society. While this may seem to fit the barest idea of what an engineer might approve of, it is a far stretch from matching the what I know of engineering types.

1. Engineers are just as interested in knowing how things work as they are in making sure they work orderly. This would lend itself to a desire for more openness in working systems. To easier be able to lift the hood and see what's going on. Most terrorists seem interested in extremely closed societies with no openness.

2. Terrorists main method of operation is to create fear and chaos in order to eventually gain control. Chaos is not an engineer's friend. While an engineer would be glad to have created order from chaos, he would not create disorder in an attempt to create a working system.

3. Engineering is generally a respected, fairly good paying career choice. What is the incentive to give up a promising future for a life of uncertainty and danger.

I just don't see it.

It's scientific management that's "monist"

[dpbsmith]

"a disproportionate share of engineers seem to have a mindset that makes them open to the quintessential right-wing features of "monism" (why argue where there is one best solution)..."

Frederick W. Taylor, advocate of "scientific management," and who literally articulated as a principle that everything could and should be done in "the one best way." In my experience, it is managers, not engineers, who tend to have the "one best way" mindset. Recently, things that used to be called "recommendations" are now called "best practices," and as nearly as I can tell nobody ever has or thinks they need any data to back up the idea that the "best practices" are actually best.

Engineers, in my experience, are the very last people to claim there is "one best way." On the contrary... the more conservative engineers are constantly articulating tradeoffs (different ways presenting different combinations of good and bad features), while the bolder ones are constantly coming up with wild new ideas. Sometimes it is difficult for a group of engineers ever to stop brainstorming, because they are so intrigued by the challenge of finding new ways to do things... and, if nothing else, because they like the competitive one-upping of thinking of ways to do something that their colleagues didn't think of.

I find this paper very disturbing. I lived through the McCarthy years... There was no definition of the word "Communist." A communist meant anyone the government didn't like. If you pointed out that some reputed "Communist" was, simply, factually, not a Communist, not only did it not matter but it made you suspect yourself. (During the McCarthy era, for example, all homosexuals were automatically "Communists.")

These days, the word "terrist" seems to have the same sort of elusive meaning. It's only a matter of time before it becomes meaningless to point out that someone is, simply and factually, not a terrist. So what, if they were friends with terrists and didn't turn them in... or if they had a "terrist mind-set..." or if they were an engineer, because, just as all homosexuals were automatically Communists, all engineers automatically have "terrist mind-sets."

Well, at least they're not _good_ engineers.

[serviscope_minor]

I am speaking as an engineer and Englishman here:

The recent failed bomb attempts in London apparently had some engineers on the design team. People with a PhD in engineering as it happens.

The fact that they failed to make a bunch of petrol and compressed propane cylinders explode, or even catch fire, is frankly quite pathetic. I think any self respecting engineer souldn't fail that badly (though I'm very glad they did fail). This certainly raises questions about the quality of the engineering department from which they got their PhDs. I have trouble believing that such incompetent engineers could really have performed any worthwhile, independent research.

If the recruits only come from third rate institutions who don't have the candidates or the ability to churn out even half-way decent engineers, then we're no worse off having engineer-terrorists than normal terrorists.

If you want an idea how bad if life would be if terrorists could get good engineers, then consider what would happen if this guy [interestingprojects.com] was recruited to the other side. Fortunatley the best engineers out there are far more interested in engineering stuff than they are in people. Since terrorism is about people, this does not incline them towards terrorism.

I somewhat agree with them

[smellsofbikes]

A previous poster pointed at Engineer's Syndrome [google.com], and I see some similar tendencies.

Engineers -- and I'm speaking as someone who is doing an engineering job, surrounded by engineers, and from a family of engineers -- tend to favor experience more than empathy. They tend to think that if they're convinced something is right, it's for good reason, and once they're convinced, it takes some work to change their minds. More particularly, if they're convinced, they're unlikely to use someone else's experience as a guideline: they're less likely to put themselves in someone else's shoes to regard a problem from that standpoint.

My own definition of Engineer Syndrome is encapsulated in the phrase, that I actually heard from one of my dad's coworkers once, "If you would've thought about this problem as much as I have, you'd agree with me." The level of premise and and patronization enclosed in that one sentence is staggering, but when it comes right down to it, I think many people drawn to engineering feel that way at some point or another. The consequence of this is that if someone else *doesn't* agree, the person suffering from ES thinks the other person is either stupid or stubbornly wrong, and either way, is a fool whose opinion is not to be regarded.

Likewise, engineers come from a background where things are provably correct (mathematics) or experimentally verifiable (most of the rest of science and engineering) and take that sense of certainty and apply it in areas where it isn't applicable -- sociology, politics, art, places where it really does come down to opinion, where there isn't actually a right and wrong, just preference.

The fundamental difference is that engineers do tend to rely on things that are provably correct or experimentally verifiable, whereas religious extremists are predicating invisible omnipotent entities. But the point is: if you have people who have this engineering set of mechanisms and filters for dealing with the world, and who believe in invisible omnipotent entities, they're going to have similar behavior to people who are drawn to engineering.

Re:Rejected yesterday, accepted today?

[superdave80]

Great, a pissed of /.er. How long till he blows something up now?

Re:

[markov_chain]

I hear your pain, friend. Time to strap on some C-4 and head for the Slashdot headquarters!

Re:

[moderatorrater]

My writeup was very similar to the accepted submission, including a direct link to the original paper

Well, that's where you went wrong! You must not be new here, so let me give you my perspective. I've been hanging out here for about a year and a half, and I've noticed that Slashdot doesn't actually link to what's making the news, it links to the news that was made by something. If there's a cool site about how to make a jumbo jet with cardboard and semen, they'll link to Arstechnica's discussion about that site. If wikileaks gets a new memo about how Bill Gates bathes in the blood of infants every night,