Slashdot Mirror
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?"
You could probably draw parallels to Engineer's Syndrome here.
All I can say is, thank god I'm an atheist!
Kevin Smith on Prince
* 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
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
"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!
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
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.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
A previous poster pointed at Engineer's Syndrome, 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.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
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.
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.
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.
A-Bomb
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.
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!"
... well, any that do are probably too afraid to try. So don't expect too much.
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
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.