I did a quick read of their paper, "ENGINEERS OF JIHAD" and found their logic very questionable. They assumed the terrorists didn't recruit engineers over non-engineers.
"First, we have found no evidence at all of recruits being selected by technical skills."
However, further on in their paper they offered the following:
"The "constitution" of al-Qaeda from the late 1980s says that
members should ideally have a college degree (Wright 2006: 142), and a training
manual for jihadists mentions a series of specific traits that recruiters seek:
"psychological, mental and intellectual fitness" (p.17), "discipline and obedience,
patience, intelligence" (p.18), "caution and prudence" (p.19), and ability "to observe
and analyze" (p.20)" [Certainly sounds like engineers would fit this description.]
The authors use as a data set information on four hundred captured terrorists. Since no educational information was available on half of this group, they tossed out half of the group. This is a factor of two. They also assumed engineer terrorists are not easier to catch than non-engineer terrorists. My personal experience is that engineers are not as good as non-engineers in the acts of lying and deception. This is why companies try to prevent engineers from interacting with customers and the Press.
The biased sample, recruitment, and the lack of an intrinsic deceptive nature issues render the conclusion of these authors more of a smoke and mirrors screed than a scientific study.
Slashdot Mirror
I did a quick read of their paper, "ENGINEERS OF JIHAD" and found their logic very questionable. They assumed the terrorists didn't recruit engineers over non-engineers. "First, we have found no evidence at all of recruits being selected by technical skills." However, further on in their paper they offered the following: "The "constitution" of al-Qaeda from the late 1980s says that members should ideally have a college degree (Wright 2006: 142), and a training manual for jihadists mentions a series of specific traits that recruiters seek: "psychological, mental and intellectual fitness" (p.17), "discipline and obedience, patience, intelligence" (p.18), "caution and prudence" (p.19), and ability "to observe and analyze" (p.20)" [Certainly sounds like engineers would fit this description.] The authors use as a data set information on four hundred captured terrorists. Since no educational information was available on half of this group, they tossed out half of the group. This is a factor of two. They also assumed engineer terrorists are not easier to catch than non-engineer terrorists. My personal experience is that engineers are not as good as non-engineers in the acts of lying and deception. This is why companies try to prevent engineers from interacting with customers and the Press. The biased sample, recruitment, and the lack of an intrinsic deceptive nature issues render the conclusion of these authors more of a smoke and mirrors screed than a scientific study.