172. 'Engineer's Syndrome' & Learning Techniques | THUNK

Engineers (like me) have a nasty reputation for positing laughably over-simplistic solutions to complex problems in other fields. Perhaps studying those fields closely might help.

-Links for the Curious-

“Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics”

[ThreeSided]

Engineering is the study of searching for the best solution to a problem given a set amount of information. Problem is, if the set amount of information is insufficient, then even the best solution has a pretty high probability of not working. Because of this, we tend to, understandably, apply engineers only to problems that we have sufficient information for, such as fields within the "hard sciences" that have reduced much of their field to hard numbers. Unfortunately, this has resulted in many engineers who aren't taught the limitations of their own education, since they're not expected to run into any other situation in the first place.

[walkerrobinson]

Came across the channel. Love the video, no foreplay and straight to the action!

[String.Epsilon]

Could you make a video or two about the upside and downside of working with simplifications?

It's a hot topic in software development. What level of abstraction is good? How much should we rely on premade solutions (and thus simplifications of hard problems that got solved and prepackaged for us)? How much do we need to understand everything below the current level we are working on?

(Which leads to "interesting" debates where people argue about whether or not we can even meaningfully debate that for people working on x86 machines, because x86 assembler is too abstract - and modern x86 processors require a significant amount of study to understand all by themselves. I ain't gonna read 4000 pages of Intel manuals and take a 6 semester CS course to write hello world.)

[Iamcg]

Been watching since the begining. Thanks so much for all these videos. -Quiet observer

[ferulebezel]

It reminds me of all those people who don't like the SAT complaining that the kids of wealthier parents can take those prep classes and do better, even though they haven't been shown to do much good. A few practice tests beforehand pretty much give matching results.

[zorro_zorro]

There could be another explanation for the apparent efficiency of practice testing. After all, the measuring instrument that was used to determine how well a student "learned" something was probably isomorphic to a practice test. Maybe student are not getting that much better at [insert field name here], but they _are_ getting better at being tested?

[edz]

it'd be like applying baye's theorem to *everything* ahaha

[benmusgrove]

I can't help but think I would have benefited from reading Dunlosky et al's paper when I was still in college...
(checks publication date)
Oh it was published while I was there...welp...missed opportunity there.

[eduardocampos]

Please Thunk us about Time Management the bane of my existence.

[afqwa]

I think it's a little more sociological than you're letting on. I think engineering also attracts particular kinds of people more than others. Yes, this includes the people who want clear-cut answers and more socially-conservative people, but also those attracted to the prestige and clout associated with the apparent rigorousness and utility of engineering as a profession. I can definitely say that as an Asian-American the "big three" prestige occupations are engineer, doctor and lawyer. And you implicitly pick up messages that these are aspirational careers. It definitely appeals to students from countries with developing economies and socially-conservative leanings (such your Islamic radical) and is also why it seems like Computer Science students are dominated by Indian and Asian kids.

Also, it's a bit silly, but you'd _expect_ to find engineers more frequently when looking at a set of people who all build bombs or something of the like. A terrorist that can't build a bomb is, obviously, a less-effective terrorist and you don't notice those.

Engineering also definitely attracts the more well-heeled people who just want to use their social status as an intellectual bludgeon and then continue to also double-down on a kind of absolutist scientism that looks down on "the SJW's." So their politics often converge upon the same kind of social conservative politics, which is why so many engineers seem to turn out to be the weird crypto-bros and smug "bootstraps" technocrats I've grown to dislike. You don't need to engage in introspection if you're already successful in life and will be taken seriously just based on the job you hold. Ironically, I don't these types actually know what science actually is -- since they just think science is just a list of facts and theories which just work, rather than the process of inquiry that generates those facts and theories. You can be a competent engineer who applies existing knowledge, but never really bothers to think about the why's.

I think basic scientific research tends to attract more, for the lack of a better term, explorers who'd rate higher on openness in the OCEAN personality inventory and for whom social status isn't usually the main reason they got into their career. There are no well-trodden path here, innovate or die. I know I can't really justify this with hard facts and figures, but personal experience leads me to believe that quite a lot of scientists that do basic research don't _actually have any idea what they're doing._ That's the point. If they did, it wouldn't be the discovery of anything new. So the process of "science" as I understand it, isn't a math formula you can just solve or a recipe to be followed. They may be literate on the current "state of art, " but after that point, they're completely alone. It also, quite frankly, usually doesn't pay as well as engineering. Which removes a lot your capability to brag about how smart you are.

I'd call it an "art" except that probably dignifies the messy, seemingly futile and aimless endeavor of research as much more romantic than it actually is. It's a endless cycle of gathering data with an experimental method that you didn't know was flawed until you've done it dozens of times. At which point, you return to the drawing board and start again. If it were an exact science, it would not be a new science. A lot of engineers, I think, have no real appreciation of this dreamless and humdrum reality. They can just laze about in the shade of trees planted by their forbears, if they so chose to.

[nipunkhare]

It's safe to assume that if any person gives this much thought process to any topic be an engineer or otherwise, they'll have some pretty elaborated morals to work upon, extremism would be hard that way. It's simple, people do stupid stuff when they don't thunk enough.

[havenbastion]

Even though you can't account for unknown unknowns, that doesn't mean the process can't make a good accounting for everything else, sufficient for passing on a basic understanding and perhaps even becoming advanced in the process. In other words, ego is the potential problem, not an accurate evaluation of the obvious strengths of your method.

[brandonbrisbane]

I wonder if part of the "Engineering mindset" also has to do with the types of problems engineers are set to solve. I say this as I suspect that other practitioners of the hard sciences (i.e. scientists) don't quite fall for the same traps despite the same adherence to logic and hard evidence. One might think it was simply this that caused engineers to take on all problems with over confidence, but seeing as scientists seemingly don't, I'm left to suspect that logic alone is not the reason for this mindset. I think it's more because engineers face problems they can get definitive final answers to where as scientists always have more open ended solutions to their problems.


If your used to having a single problem to solve and getting the solution, you may tend to think this is always the case (i.e. there is a river to cross, so there is a bridge to be built). Having a problems whose solution leaves further questions reminds you that no answers is final and that there is always more to know (i.e. we learnt atoms are made if electrons, protons and neutrons; but what are they made of??)

[catalyst]

As an aspiring engineer, I feel personally attacked.

[saavestro]

Dude, why don't you turn these into a podcast. Would be awesome.

[onage]

Love your channel. YouTube needs more of this type of content.

[Fiddling_while_Rome_burns]

As someone with a 1st degree in Philosophy and a Masters in Software Engineering, I do find Engineering the closest subject to Philosophy, especially continental.

[passingthetorch]

Or ... engineers are better at constructing bombs. Anyway, were they looking at "successful" terrorists, or *all* terrorists? Did they control for representation in that sub-community? Sure, I'm a mathematician (well, I studied as one anyway), and I like consistent systems. But I'm enough of a mathematician to realize that when I logically conclude things which *necessitate* (not just allow) actively harming other people, then my assumptions/axioms are wrong. ... I'm sure you'd love a quote from Ayn Rand: “Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." (And clearly actively hurting others is wrong.)
BTW, the necessity of "selfishness" (you *must* view the world from your point of view) is one of bases of libertarianism. I *cannot* claim to have a solution, because my knowledge is necessarily limited to my experience. I can do the best I can for myself (and those around me), but to claim to know the best for everyone is the height of hubris. It's quite obvious that my mind cannot contain a complete model of the world and other people (even a single other person) and as these systems (including other people) are very non-linear (and chaotic), there is no chance of me making predictions for any distance into the future.

[kenbee]

This is the dumbed down version of detailed and important topics. Thumbs down