Engineers are troublesome 'expert loners' , says prof
- Thread starter ENS Audio
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
owel
Well-known member
Not me! I didn't break up the assigned project.
Instead, I asked my prof if I can work on the project alone just by myself.... instead of having freeloaders (errr... classmates) be part of the team, I'd rather be a one-man team. Request granted! ;D ;D ;D
I've been an engineer and engineering manager, a basketball player and basketball coach. I have all kinds of opinions and comments.
I have worked with many engineers and my best engineers were often iconoclastic. While not necessarily loners, they were certainly individuals and not joiners, in any group that would have them (insert groucho marx joke).
Regarding "teamwork", I like to think I know a little about that (one basketball trophy coaching), and it is not about group hugs in the locker room or sharing the ball... Teamwork is simply about you doing your individual job, when and how you are supposed to do it, so everyone else on your "team" can do their job when and how they are supposed to do it. The obvious sports metaphor is football linemen making important blocks, backs running their patterns, when and how they are supposed to, so the quarterback can do his job effectively.
Team work for engineers in my view, is passing accurate documentation to support groups in the right format and in time so they can do their job... Good engineers that I have known were team players in this regard, just not all warm and cuddly when dealing with the suits. Don't poke the engineers they will bite...
JR
I have worked with many engineers and my best engineers were often iconoclastic. While not necessarily loners, they were certainly individuals and not joiners, in any group that would have them (insert groucho marx joke).
Regarding "teamwork", I like to think I know a little about that (one basketball trophy coaching), and it is not about group hugs in the locker room or sharing the ball... Teamwork is simply about you doing your individual job, when and how you are supposed to do it, so everyone else on your "team" can do their job when and how they are supposed to do it. The obvious sports metaphor is football linemen making important blocks, backs running their patterns, when and how they are supposed to, so the quarterback can do his job effectively.
Team work for engineers in my view, is passing accurate documentation to support groups in the right format and in time so they can do their job... Good engineers that I have known were team players in this regard, just not all warm and cuddly when dealing with the suits. Don't poke the engineers they will bite...
JR
AnalogPackrat
Well-known member
I'm also an engineer (computer engineering--specifically machine vision SW and systems). Been doing it for over 17 years after school and for 7 years in various intern positions while in school. That article was poor. To me it misses the point that different personality types a often drawn to different career paths. The closest thing I've found to accurately describe this is the MBTI or related Kiersey Temperament Sorter. People drawn to engineering tend to focus on the problem or the task more than the team. As JR pointed out--good engineers work together, but not usually with a warm fuzzy halo like you might see in HR, marketing, sales, teaching, MANAGING, etc.
When you have a manager from a non-engineering background (or even one who started out in engineering but never really "got it" and quickly moved up into management) running an engineering organization, friction often occurs due to misunderstood personalities on both sides. Engineers also respect knowledge, not position. If you don't know the technology yet insist on injecting yourself into technical decision-making, expect trouble even if you are "the boss." I think this characteristic is what gives us the "egoistic" label.
Non-engineers often see engineers as negative people or perfectionists. Well, think about it a minute. What do we do all day, every day? Look for problems and try to fix them. So what others see as negativity is simply an engineer pointing out a problem--one he/she might want to fix. Engineers often don't "get" the marketing guy's perspective. Marketing is looking for the positive aspect of the product. They are often willing to stretch the truth (that they don't fully understand) to get an edge on the competition, even if the edge is only on paper. A lot of that also comes down to personality differences.
So there is a problem with "the media" and others not understanding what engineering is all about. But the problem isn't going to be fixed the way the author thinks it will. You can't change the personality of people drawn to engineering careers. And you can't put other personality types in engineering and expect them to succeed. It goes waaaay deeper than that, IMO.
A P
When you have a manager from a non-engineering background (or even one who started out in engineering but never really "got it" and quickly moved up into management) running an engineering organization, friction often occurs due to misunderstood personalities on both sides. Engineers also respect knowledge, not position. If you don't know the technology yet insist on injecting yourself into technical decision-making, expect trouble even if you are "the boss." I think this characteristic is what gives us the "egoistic" label.
Non-engineers often see engineers as negative people or perfectionists. Well, think about it a minute. What do we do all day, every day? Look for problems and try to fix them. So what others see as negativity is simply an engineer pointing out a problem--one he/she might want to fix. Engineers often don't "get" the marketing guy's perspective. Marketing is looking for the positive aspect of the product. They are often willing to stretch the truth (that they don't fully understand) to get an edge on the competition, even if the edge is only on paper. A lot of that also comes down to personality differences.
So there is a problem with "the media" and others not understanding what engineering is all about. But the problem isn't going to be fixed the way the author thinks it will. You can't change the personality of people drawn to engineering careers. And you can't put other personality types in engineering and expect them to succeed. It goes waaaay deeper than that, IMO.
A P
I'm not an Engineer (in the modern sense, whatever that is), but I am the son of an engineer and considered becoming one.
Dang right. That's how non-easy problems get solved. Most 'engineering" problems have almost too many conflicting variables and approaches for one brain; way too many to share between brains. Smart minds can balance approaches faster than they can talk about them. Keep the core brain-work in one brain. See "Mythical Man-Month": adding more brains -slows- the process. Interbrain communication and coordination exceeds actual thinking.
> passing accurate documentation to support groups in the right format and in time
Right. It's like cutting a chicken. Most big problems can be cut into smaller pieces at "easy points". Legs, wings, neck. Sometimes you use a big cleaver: split breast, so you have two equal problems. Then you can fork each sub-problem to a different brain. BUT each brain must know the scope of its piece (whole leg or just drumstick?) and how it was/will-be connected to the other pieces. If we re-assemble the chicken, is Torso responsible for supplying blood to Legs, or must Legs do their own blood supply? Will the editor subroutine pass text to the spell-chucker, or must the spill-checker pull text from a shared buffer? In a God-crafted creature, those decisions are already solved; city sewers, word-processors, and other man-bodged projects don't always have clear guidance.
The old book "Code Complete" has many examples of software projects, cut-up and joined at interfaces, where both teams or neither team solved some key problem, and this was not noticed until final assembly. Minor examples abound in all software. What is the EXACT interface? What is expected, what will be supplied? Do car-doors ship in crates? 5/4" #2 oak crates?? (Henry Ford got bids for Model T body-stampings. The final contract specified very special crates. He manipulated the assumed purchasing interface so he got free floor-boards with his stampings. More often interfaces are so sloppy that everybody loses.)
Much of the best engineering is one-man(/woman) work, albeit interfaced with everything which came before and all that can be butchered-off or bought-in. WordStar 2 was one guy in an attic, with the Z80 CPU manual (decent interface documentation). Stevenson's steam engine was mostly Stevenson, but standing on the shoulders of Newcomen and Watt and other steamheads, and ordering-around skilled machinists and foundrymen (prior-art and craft interfaces). Roebling and his son built big and small bridges with one main brain directing many hands and helper-brains. The industrial steel buildings which fell down were drawn by one team and signed by a Professional Engineer, interfaced with little more than a $50 check. The full design factors were not really interfaced to the PE, and for $50 (he was sick and needed the money) he didn't care. This interface was so weak, that when the fallen-down buildings went to court, even though a PE is supposed to be legally liable, the judge released the PE from the suit.
My father the EE did, late in career, wish he'd developed communication skills. He knew what was in his brain, but imparting it to others was tough, often futile. Good technical writing is a special skill. I tried to get a degree in that but realized that my professors were addle-brains, couldn't write-up how to tear your way out of a paper bag.
Dang right. That's how non-easy problems get solved. Most 'engineering" problems have almost too many conflicting variables and approaches for one brain; way too many to share between brains. Smart minds can balance approaches faster than they can talk about them. Keep the core brain-work in one brain. See "Mythical Man-Month": adding more brains -slows- the process. Interbrain communication and coordination exceeds actual thinking.
> passing accurate documentation to support groups in the right format and in time
Right. It's like cutting a chicken. Most big problems can be cut into smaller pieces at "easy points". Legs, wings, neck. Sometimes you use a big cleaver: split breast, so you have two equal problems. Then you can fork each sub-problem to a different brain. BUT each brain must know the scope of its piece (whole leg or just drumstick?) and how it was/will-be connected to the other pieces. If we re-assemble the chicken, is Torso responsible for supplying blood to Legs, or must Legs do their own blood supply? Will the editor subroutine pass text to the spell-chucker, or must the spill-checker pull text from a shared buffer? In a God-crafted creature, those decisions are already solved; city sewers, word-processors, and other man-bodged projects don't always have clear guidance.
The old book "Code Complete" has many examples of software projects, cut-up and joined at interfaces, where both teams or neither team solved some key problem, and this was not noticed until final assembly. Minor examples abound in all software. What is the EXACT interface? What is expected, what will be supplied? Do car-doors ship in crates? 5/4" #2 oak crates?? (Henry Ford got bids for Model T body-stampings. The final contract specified very special crates. He manipulated the assumed purchasing interface so he got free floor-boards with his stampings. More often interfaces are so sloppy that everybody loses.)
Much of the best engineering is one-man(/woman) work, albeit interfaced with everything which came before and all that can be butchered-off or bought-in. WordStar 2 was one guy in an attic, with the Z80 CPU manual (decent interface documentation). Stevenson's steam engine was mostly Stevenson, but standing on the shoulders of Newcomen and Watt and other steamheads, and ordering-around skilled machinists and foundrymen (prior-art and craft interfaces). Roebling and his son built big and small bridges with one main brain directing many hands and helper-brains. The industrial steel buildings which fell down were drawn by one team and signed by a Professional Engineer, interfaced with little more than a $50 check. The full design factors were not really interfaced to the PE, and for $50 (he was sick and needed the money) he didn't care. This interface was so weak, that when the fallen-down buildings went to court, even though a PE is supposed to be legally liable, the judge released the PE from the suit.
My father the EE did, late in career, wish he'd developed communication skills. He knew what was in his brain, but imparting it to others was tough, often futile. Good technical writing is a special skill. I tried to get a degree in that but realized that my professors were addle-brains, couldn't write-up how to tear your way out of a paper bag.
leswatts
Well-known member
I'm cerainly the toublesome loner type, but I don't think i'm very typical.
In Engineering school things were pretty collaborative though. If you wanted the very best GPA, you had to get yourself into an informally organized study group. That's all we cared about...GPA. We didn't compete. Things were not graded on a curve. Either you could do the stuff, or you couldn't. But being viciously ambitious, we wanted every bit of information we could get and worked together to find it.
Past tests, teaching styles and habits of the professors,...that sort of stuff. We never worked together on understanding technical aspects. That part wasn't very hard, and we all got it or we wouldn't be there. But it's only a small part of being an engineer.
After the high GPA got you into a nice position in industry, it all changed. No real collaboration. It was all about finding a supervisor dumb enough to let you become indispensible.
Les
L M Watts Technology
In Engineering school things were pretty collaborative though. If you wanted the very best GPA, you had to get yourself into an informally organized study group. That's all we cared about...GPA. We didn't compete. Things were not graded on a curve. Either you could do the stuff, or you couldn't. But being viciously ambitious, we wanted every bit of information we could get and worked together to find it.
Past tests, teaching styles and habits of the professors,...that sort of stuff. We never worked together on understanding technical aspects. That part wasn't very hard, and we all got it or we wouldn't be there. But it's only a small part of being an engineer.
After the high GPA got you into a nice position in industry, it all changed. No real collaboration. It was all about finding a supervisor dumb enough to let you become indispensible.
Les
L M Watts Technology
Comedy.... I'm not an engineer but an artist by trade... I think in temperament, very similar types.
Steinbeck had this to say about the individual vs collective:
Our species is the only creative species, and it has only one creative instrument, the individual mind and spirit of a man. Nothing was ever created by two men. There are no good collaborations, whether in art, in music, in poetry, in mathematics, in philosophy. Once the miracle of creation has taken place, the group can build and extend it, but the group never invents anything. The preciousness lies in the lonely mind of a man.
And now the forces marshaled around the concept of the group have declared a war of extermination on that preciousness, the mind of man. By disparagement, by starvation, by repressions, forced direction, and the stunning blows of conditioning, the free, roving mind is being pursued, roped, blunted, drugged. It is a sad suicidal course our species seems to have taken.
Steinbeck had this to say about the individual vs collective:
Our species is the only creative species, and it has only one creative instrument, the individual mind and spirit of a man. Nothing was ever created by two men. There are no good collaborations, whether in art, in music, in poetry, in mathematics, in philosophy. Once the miracle of creation has taken place, the group can build and extend it, but the group never invents anything. The preciousness lies in the lonely mind of a man.
And now the forces marshaled around the concept of the group have declared a war of extermination on that preciousness, the mind of man. By disparagement, by starvation, by repressions, forced direction, and the stunning blows of conditioning, the free, roving mind is being pursued, roped, blunted, drugged. It is a sad suicidal course our species seems to have taken.
pucho812
Well-known member
I prefer to work alone that way I have no one to blame but myself if the project does not work out.
AnalogPackrat
Well-known member
Good points about the single mind phenomenon. It's quite true that very little true invention/innovation is done by committee. Love that Steinbeck quote, Davo. When you said you think artists and engineers have similar temperaments, did you mean with respect to some sort of desire for elegance in their work? If so, I agree. In my experience, many of the best engineers don't just find a solution that works, they find an elegant solution. One that optimizes several aspects of the design in seemingly simple, but non-obvious ways: doing more with less, getting a two-for-one, turning some negative aspect into a positive, etc.
On a related note (artists and engineers), I had a manager about 10 years ago who preferred to hire engineers who had an interest in music. He had recognized that something about the mindset of a musician, even just an amateur dood with a guitar, seemed to make them better at working on large projects. I'm biased, being an amateur musician, but I have seen some anecdotal evidence that would support this position. Some of my best engineering friends--people I've met in school or at work--are also interested in music. These are folks I would be happy to work with anywhere because they are also good at their day job. I am painfully aware that at my current job I am the only musician in the local engineering department (~30 people). And I have to say that the correlation holds (unfortunately).
A P
On a related note (artists and engineers), I had a manager about 10 years ago who preferred to hire engineers who had an interest in music. He had recognized that something about the mindset of a musician, even just an amateur dood with a guitar, seemed to make them better at working on large projects. I'm biased, being an amateur musician, but I have seen some anecdotal evidence that would support this position. Some of my best engineering friends--people I've met in school or at work--are also interested in music. These are folks I would be happy to work with anywhere because they are also good at their day job. I am painfully aware that at my current job I am the only musician in the local engineering department (~30 people). And I have to say that the correlation holds (unfortunately).
A P
Mbira
Well-known member
This is my new mantra. ;D
I'm self employed so my boss is an asshole...
JR
JR
Hi AnalogPackrat,
Absolutely, great points..... just like in the creation of a song, I feel that there are two stages... one is the isolated activity of writing the "demo", and two is when that demo is brought to the group and they add their magic. I have never ever written a good song during a jam session
, although I can't speak for everyone here.
In regards to temperament, I definitely agree that there is a striving towards elegance. As an artist, I can only work alone to bring a piece to fruition. We're all problem solvers, and in addition, we're looking for the most pragmatic and elegant solutions to solve those problems. Even when
designing a PCB, I'm looking to make it aesthetically pleasing. When you say "an elegant solution that optimizes several aspects of the design"... this only comes when you've reached a degree of mastery, in art, I would call it being "dynamic"... it's that X factor that separates a good song from a great one or a great design from one that's mediocre.
As well, we probably get a bad rap because we do have these elegant, stylistic (individualistic) design aspects in mind when it comes to any mode
of creation. When a "higher up" or client comes in and offers "words of wisdom" for a creation... my first response is usually f*** off ;D, because it's coming from a inexpert source... But often I'll step back and say, what are they seeing that I'm not? and does it bear any weight. I'm much more apt to take criticism from a peer, whether or not I agree with them
-d
Absolutely, great points..... just like in the creation of a song, I feel that there are two stages... one is the isolated activity of writing the "demo", and two is when that demo is brought to the group and they add their magic. I have never ever written a good song during a jam session
, although I can't speak for everyone here.In regards to temperament, I definitely agree that there is a striving towards elegance. As an artist, I can only work alone to bring a piece to fruition. We're all problem solvers, and in addition, we're looking for the most pragmatic and elegant solutions to solve those problems. Even when
designing a PCB, I'm looking to make it aesthetically pleasing. When you say "an elegant solution that optimizes several aspects of the design"... this only comes when you've reached a degree of mastery, in art, I would call it being "dynamic"... it's that X factor that separates a good song from a great one or a great design from one that's mediocre.
As well, we probably get a bad rap because we do have these elegant, stylistic (individualistic) design aspects in mind when it comes to any mode
of creation. When a "higher up" or client comes in and offers "words of wisdom" for a creation... my first response is usually f*** off ;D, because it's coming from a inexpert source... But often I'll step back and say, what are they seeing that I'm not? and does it bear any weight. I'm much more apt to take criticism from a peer, whether or not I agree with them
-d
sahib
Well-known member
The article is indeed poor. Worse, watered down and cliche. Also, why engineers and not others? How about professors? Are they not loners? Great majority of whom that I came across are self centered in the extreme. Some even borders on being complete asses with their self importance.
I must agree with John (in his first post) that team work is not cuddling up in groups. That is how the profs might want to see their students in lab but in the work place what you want is people who would come up with the goods and on time. At some point I had 14 people in the payroll, not engineers but technicians and the ones who could do that would prefer to take their job to their corners like a lion and tear it to pieces. For better reason, not to end up compensating the deficiencies of the mediocre ones in the group. Throwing a group of people on a job like a flock of blue arsed flies, circling around a shit does not work in great majority of the time, even if it is a team work.
I must agree with John (in his first post) that team work is not cuddling up in groups. That is how the profs might want to see their students in lab but in the work place what you want is people who would come up with the goods and on time. At some point I had 14 people in the payroll, not engineers but technicians and the ones who could do that would prefer to take their job to their corners like a lion and tear it to pieces. For better reason, not to end up compensating the deficiencies of the mediocre ones in the group. Throwing a group of people on a job like a flock of blue arsed flies, circling around a shit does not work in great majority of the time, even if it is a team work.
Stagefright13
Well-known member
LOL JR! I used to work as an engineering assistant. A team of engineers would design a product on a bid. $$$ Then I would machine the parts that the CAD program wouldn't foresee. To meet a deadline. I worked massive overtime...
But actually I think they saw the shortcomings in the design and knew I would take care of it. But they no longer rely on me. But some of the last minute decisions they made were quite brilliant. So I still respect some of them. A very few.
John
But actually I think they saw the shortcomings in the design and knew I would take care of it. But they no longer rely on me. But some of the last minute decisions they made were quite brilliant. So I still respect some of them. A very few.
John
coniglius
Well-known member
I'll second that engineers don't work well in "groups". We had engineering students in my Group Theory class who'd ask questions like "what does that f:G-->H thing mean?"
sahib
Well-known member
PRR said:
I second this. In many occassion I made a point about technical books, particularly in electrical and electronic engineering. There are loads of them deliberately written with so called "academic language" that it makes no sense to a learning student. Simple explanations like how and why are completely missed.
> deliberately written with so called "academic language" that it makes no sense to a learning student.
Yes, yes, yes.
In English we have "readability scales". They are all flawed, but useful. Many are adjusted to the years-of-school needed to read a passage. They actually count number of words per sentence, big words, uncommon words.
"Run, Spot, Run!" ought to be read at 1st or 2nd grade level.
Mom was a newspaperwoman and the goal there was to write to a 9th grade level... most readers had finished 10 or 12 or 16 years of school, but get rusty, and don't want to strain to understand a newspaper.
My university (academic) department had a Mission Statement. It was a pain to read. I ran it through the test and it came back "23rd grade level". I didn't know the scale went so high! But it was in fact correct: the authors were serious academics who had 12 years grade-school, 4 years undergrad, and typically 5 years graduate education, and were writing for (and hoping to impress) peers.
I'm against it. The #4 post here reads at 7.5-grade level. That's half my formal education level.
That's not "dumbing down". I think you agree I made some points (a bit fuzzy because I was falling asleep). Readers should not have to strain over-written words to reach the writer's point.
Readability is very different from "saying something". The sports page of the local newspaper had an article about last night's World Series (baseball) game, between two teams I know and respect. Seven column-inches before the jump, all 8th-10th-grade writing, and it never said "who won"!! Maybe if I'd turned to the inside jump, they mentioned the winner in passing. And actually if I cared, I'd hear it on the radio long before the paper came out (except radio is pretty poor out here, and this newspaper should know that). But it struck me as completely omitting the main fact.
Again with the newspaper. Maine has a referendum tomorrow; 6 or 7 questions for voters to decide (so the legislature does not have to take the blame). #1 is a real HOT-BUTTON question. Daily articles and essays in the paper. Roadside signs "No on 1!" But I was here for several days before I understood why "No" was really "Yes". Maybe I missed full explanations published weeks ago. But a good newspaperwoman can recap the main point while getting on with today's developments.
If my books weren't still in boxes, I could find tech examples, but we all know some.
(This post is 6.7 grade level.)
Yes, yes, yes.
In English we have "readability scales". They are all flawed, but useful. Many are adjusted to the years-of-school needed to read a passage. They actually count number of words per sentence, big words, uncommon words.
"Run, Spot, Run!" ought to be read at 1st or 2nd grade level.
Mom was a newspaperwoman and the goal there was to write to a 9th grade level... most readers had finished 10 or 12 or 16 years of school, but get rusty, and don't want to strain to understand a newspaper.
My university (academic) department had a Mission Statement. It was a pain to read. I ran it through the test and it came back "23rd grade level". I didn't know the scale went so high! But it was in fact correct: the authors were serious academics who had 12 years grade-school, 4 years undergrad, and typically 5 years graduate education, and were writing for (and hoping to impress) peers.
I'm against it. The #4 post here reads at 7.5-grade level. That's half my formal education level.
That's not "dumbing down". I think you agree I made some points (a bit fuzzy because I was falling asleep). Readers should not have to strain over-written words to reach the writer's point.
Readability is very different from "saying something". The sports page of the local newspaper had an article about last night's World Series (baseball) game, between two teams I know and respect. Seven column-inches before the jump, all 8th-10th-grade writing, and it never said "who won"!! Maybe if I'd turned to the inside jump, they mentioned the winner in passing. And actually if I cared, I'd hear it on the radio long before the paper came out (except radio is pretty poor out here, and this newspaper should know that). But it struck me as completely omitting the main fact.
Again with the newspaper. Maine has a referendum tomorrow; 6 or 7 questions for voters to decide (so the legislature does not have to take the blame). #1 is a real HOT-BUTTON question. Daily articles and essays in the paper. Roadside signs "No on 1!" But I was here for several days before I understood why "No" was really "Yes". Maybe I missed full explanations published weeks ago. But a good newspaperwoman can recap the main point while getting on with today's developments.
If my books weren't still in boxes, I could find tech examples, but we all know some.
(This post is 6.7 grade level.)
Steve Jones
Well-known member
Engineers are troublesome 'expert loners'.
CEO's are inept, greedy and rarely worth their bonuses and salaries.
Well, it isn't engineers that created the economic collapse, was it?
CEO's are inept, greedy and rarely worth their bonuses and salaries.
Well, it isn't engineers that created the economic collapse, was it?
http://kisa.ca/personality/
Introverted (I) 64% Extraverted (E) 36%
Intuitive (N) 64% Sensing (S) 36%
Feeling (F) 55% Thinking (T) 45%
Judging (J) 55% Perceiving (P) 45%
I could probably use some work. I used to be very social, but became more introverted after realizing that half of everyone out there is either inept or full of BS in lieu of actually being constructive.
My career choice is Computer Science.
Introverted (I) 64% Extraverted (E) 36%
Intuitive (N) 64% Sensing (S) 36%
Feeling (F) 55% Thinking (T) 45%
Judging (J) 55% Perceiving (P) 45%
I could probably use some work. I used to be very social, but became more introverted after realizing that half of everyone out there is either inept or full of BS in lieu of actually being constructive.
My career choice is Computer Science.
Steve Jones said:
It was financial "engineering" that created the obscure derivatives, that were irresponsibly used by greedy people up and down the food chain trying to get something for nothing. While not engineers per se, arguably engineering.
JR
PS: Stereotypes only work to a point.
Similar threads
