An Egyptian engineer

[sackett]

A few minutes ago, I had a conversation with an ancient Egyptian – well, he’s pushing 70 anyway. He’s one of our senior professors, a man of great learning in an extremely narrow field.

I call him an ancient Egyptian advisedly: he’s a dead ringer for a statue of a Middle Kingdom scribe I once saw in the Toledo Art Museum.

He’s a Coptic Christian, and a devout reader in, get this, theology – theology as he understands it, i.e., an innocent acceptance of the New Testament and the traditions of the early fathers. He especially reveres Saint Mark. “You mean the one who has wings* in one of his avatars?” I asked.

“You are speaking a language I do not know!” he cried, and when I started to go to Wiki to swot up on St. Mark, he found that he had urgent appointments, and left.

It’s an old story that many engineers start on a narrow educational track as early as high school, and never much deviate from it. I know at least one American engineer who has a vague idea that Moby Dick is a book about a whale – and that’s all he’s heard about it, and he’ll go to his grave without ever cracking it, or any other novel.

Dr. Egyptian’s outside interests are wider than just religion; he has notions about language and culture and history, all naïve because all ill-informed, and ill-informed because he’s never learned how to research a topic outside his engineering specialty.

He’s one of about six guys in the world who can engineer a space shuttle fuel tank without consulting a reference book. If his expertise was acquired – and continues to expand -- at the cost of remaining a little child in almost every other aspect of life, should we deplore his education?

*I was wrong about that: Mark’s attributes include a winged lion, but he’s usually represented in human form. An interesting cultural accretion all the same.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I have found as I random walk my way through life that people in very specialized carriers tend (and I'm not making a rule out of this) to have very little knowledge of anything outside of their speciality.

As a gratuitous aside I'll note that this expecially applies to Christian Theologists who never, ever seem to know anything about other religions.

[Jimbo07]

On the other hand, are generalists actually "good" at anything?

:D

It's a joke, but in some sense, to actually produce certain things requires very detailed knowledge (or years of experience as a craftsman/tradesperson). I think the best bet is to focus and be "good" at something professionally, then try to take up external hobbies to be well-rounded.

I'll let you know how this philosophy has worked out in a coupla decades... ;)

[sackett]

Answering my own question, I'm inclined not to deplore the narrowness of Dr. Akhnaton's education. We're all ignorant of a great many things. (If I hear a man aboard a plane call himself educated, I'll -- oh never mind.) Fact is, he's unusual in my experince in having such an active intellect, however untrained. It's amusing to engage him on topics of which I'm a little less ignorant than he is -- only a little, I said.

But I would argue that we really ought to train engineers and other technocrats better in elementary critical skills, and encourage them to think about topics outside their fields. In politics and social issues especially, the professionals I deal with -- academic engineers, admittedly a subset of engineering as a whole -- can be jaw-droppingly ignorant and illiberal, like self-assured country boys just come to town.

But I can overlook that if they're good engineers. After all, I drive the cars they build, and ride in the airplanes they design, and cross rivers on the bridges they engineer. (Wait a sec. There's something bothering me. I'll think of it in a minute.)

[slyjoe]

Personally, I find that the distinction may not be engineering (or technocrats) in itself, but rather the arena (academics). I know a lot of engineers that are extremely well rounded (and some are not), but they tend to be in industry rather than academia.

Does academia cause this narrowness, or are those that tend to be narrow more likely to go into academia?

[drkitten]

Personally, I find that the distinction may not be engineering (or technocrats) in itself, but rather the arena (academics). I know a lot of engineers that are extremely well rounded (and some are not), but they tend to be in industry rather than academia.

Does academia cause this narrowness, or are those that tend to be narrow more likely to go into academia?

Or possibly confirmation bias on your part. My experiences tend to be the other way around; academic engineers have more free time to pursue other interests. William Whyte documented something like this in the 1950s with a number of studies of corporate culture.

However, depending upon where you did your observations -- one characteristic that almost all successful professionals have in common is singlemindedness and a focus on success. The time you're spending doing macrame or learning how to jet-ski is time that you're not spending reading journal articles and keeping up-to-date in your field. Many well-rounded individuals find they're not willing to focus on their ostensible profession to the degree necessary to make tenure at MIT, for example.

[slyjoe]

Or possibly confirmation bias on your part. My experiences tend to be the other way around; academic engineers have more free time to pursue other interests. William Whyte documented something like this in the 1950s with a number of studies of corporate culture.

Point well taken. Especially since my father was a professor.;)

However, depending upon where you did your observations -- one characteristic that almost all successful professionals have in common is singlemindedness and a focus on success. The time you're spending doing macrame or learning how to jet-ski is time that you're not spending reading journal articles and keeping up-to-date in your field. Many well-rounded individuals find they're not willing to focus on their ostensible profession to the degree necessary to make tenure at MIT, for example.

Hmm, this is kind of confusing to me, in that is sounds opposite of what you said previously. This sounds like you are saying that if you spend time on other pursuits, you won't get tenure in academia???? Which would tend to show academics are less well-rounded than those in industry. I may be misreading this - my apologies if I am.

[drkitten]

Hmm, this is kind of confusing to me, in that is sounds opposite of what you said previously. This sounds like you are saying that if you spend time on other pursuits, you won't get tenure in academia???? Which would tend to show academics are less well-rounded than those in industry. I may be misreading this - my apologies if I am.

No, I'm pointing out that if you spend time on other pursuits, you won't be as successful irrespective of your chosen career. MIT is widely regarded as one of the top engineering schools in the world; to get tenure at MIT requires concentration to the point of singlemindedness. Sam Houston Institute of Technology is less demanding, and you may be able to maintain your hobbies.

But by the same token, a successful career at a high-end engineering firm (or in private practice aka self-employment) typically takes much more time than simply working as a traffic engineer for the local county. The undersecretary of transportation has less free time than a typical GS-11.

If the professors you know were all professors at "good" schools, but the engineers you knew were not especially high-flyers, you might expect to see the professors to be more focused and single -minded. But if the engineers you knew were all high-end engineers at BP while the professors taught at the local business college, I would expect to see the opposite.

[slyjoe]

Got it. And I agree. I have seen both examples (i.e., high flyers and non-high flyers) in both industry and academia. I think the point about confirmation bias on my part is probably more correct than I would like.

[sackett]

Just to confuse the picture a little further, I can state pretty confidently that almost all of the professors of engineering I've known since 1969 have had experience in industry before turning to teaching. Some (a diminishing number, I think) are still active consultants to industy and treat their university positions as second jobs.

As a result of their industry experience, most of the engineers I've known think -- or at least feel -- like management; certainly they see the world from a high window in corporate headquarters. That leads them into a needlessly narrow and uncharitable conservatism. Their starting assumptions are those of a 19th.-century entrepreneur.

And man! but they can be easy to fool! I've told them jackalope stories and other Old West hopalongs that wouldn't entertain a pre-schooler. Hook, line, sinker, gulp! and they're gone.

That would make me uneasy, except that the narrow intensity of their concentration on their specialties makes them generally indifferent to social questions; they aren't cut out to be activists.

Mind you, I'm glad to have spent the last 27 years dealing with engineers rather than with the broader range of academics. (I did that for nine years at the University of Colorado. Never again.) They are, in the main, a simple-hearted body of men. I trust them; I just wish they had a better-informed view of the world.

[The Atheist]

.... all naïve because all ill-informed, and ill-informed because he’s never learned how to research a topic outside his engineering specialty.

I'm a 15-year recruiter dealing mostly with engineers and related people. I quite often tell people how astonished I am at the number of engineers who are radically fundamental christians when they're not engineering.

And the religiosity seems to be in inverse correlation to the difficulty of discipline - the harder the field; electrical, electronic, etc - the higher the percentage of christians. Something to do with a mind which only works in straight lines.

Oh yeah, and having no personality.

[sackett]

Atheist is onto something, I think. Dr. Akhnaton is in a very difficult subset of engineering, modeling fluid behaviors in closed spaces under different kinds of gravity loads (I think I got all the words in the right order), and he routinely collaborates with mathematicians because of the abstruseness of the calculations. A man tackling stuff like that would need to give all his attention to it; studying theology would be relaxing just for the contrast.

I will say, however, that Dr. Akhnaton has puh-lenty of personality. Like many tall men (he's over six feet), he expects to dominate any conversation, and succeeds much of the time.

I'm glad NASA has him on call.

[Ove]

I remember Danish TV-2 some years ago made a funny experiment. They got one of the most intelligent men in Denmark, a Professor in Mathmatics, he not only knew the theory of Relativity he could explain it.. :)
They gave this very intelligent man a TV set, a VCR, the nescessary cables, a tape with a movie and a users manual and tasked him to get the VCR connected to the TV and play the tape. HE was left alone and they then returned a couple of hours later. He had NOT seen any movie.. :)
He was(is) married he told later in an interwiev, mostly because he needed someone to pay his bills, get him dressed and feed him. He was completely useless in everyday tasks.

And he is very entertaining and he too dominates most discussions...

[fortuneteller]

*I was wrong about that: Mark’s attributes include a winged lion, but he’s usually represented in human form. An interesting cultural accretion all the same. you would do good to quietly take in whatever knowledge this great man is willing to share with you.

perhaps when you reach the age of 70, you will have the ability to embrace others with the same knowledge. until then, respect him as your mentor, and do some research to explain the symbolic meaning of the wings. if anyone can tell you, he can.

this country has failed miserably in producing engineers over the last several decades, we have to farm out engineers from other countries just to teach our children. our educational system is in crisis, based on that fact alone.

one major pitfall has been our long history of failed market demand for engineers. not only is the salary below standard, but at one time, back in the 1980's, engineers were "a dime a dozen" which explains the recent trends.
new technologies, new markets must be created in order to recover from the spiral.

a new booming highway program to repair america's highways and bridges is just one that can be initiated right away, creating job opportunities for engineers.

[sackett]

you would do good to quietly take in whatever knowledge this great man is willing to share with you....

I guess you're saying that I should sit at Dr. Akhnaton's feet and imbibe his esoteric wisdom. Trouble is, I'm more his mentor than the other way around. He's quite a child when it comes to history, culture (and cultures), mythology, and contemporary life.

In short, he's not a "great man," he's something better, a damn good engineer. His minor eccentricities don't hurt a bit; hell, I'm glad he can stretch his mind even as far as he does.

About the other stuff: Ninety percent of our college's PhDs are currently living here in Southeast Michigan -- well, not the ones who have lived long lives and died (our college was established in 1935). The great bulk of them are and have long been foreign-born; I don't have stats on just how many. The point is that the U.S. is importing brains by the shipload, and keeping them here.

Highway engineering isn't a very high-tech field anymore. Our guys are mostly way, way more 21st. century in their expertise and interests.

[jimbob]

I'm a 15-year recruiter dealing mostly with engineers and related people. I quite often tell people how astonished I am at the number of engineers who are radically fundamental christians when they're not engineering.

And the religiosity seems to be in inverse correlation to the difficulty of discipline - the harder the field; electrical, electronic, etc - the higher the percentage of christians. Something to do with a mind which only works in straight lines.

Oh yeah, and having no personality.

I can only think of one Biologist who is famously a crEationist, and He is not too hot.

OTOH I can think of physicists who have similar ideas. I guess that Darwin's idea about the ichneumon wasp possibly does work.

I have a colleague who even regards jokes about evolution as heretical. Very good in his narrow specialism, scarily uninformable outside it. (And in my opinion a worse engineer for that, as there is a tendancy to focus on the task, and miss the goal).

I'm a generalist bugger I can fool the my electonic engineering colleagues that I know about physics and chemistry, the chemists that I know about electronics and... But I know less about either of their specialisms than they do. (I do know a bit about physics).

I'd agree with Drkitten; a tendancy to specialism is makes it easier to succeed in academia for mere mortals (i.e. not Feynman).

At my workplace there are definitely two general types of engineer, the nosey sod who is interested in many things, and the specialist who is only interested in a very narrow field.

Jim

Jim