Engineers are troublesome 'expert loners' , says prof

[JohnRoberts]

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.

+1 this is the essence of good design... doing more with less, better.

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

Oh well,, that explains my shoddy design work, I'm not a muso..  ;D

At my last day job there were lots of musicians working in all capacities. It just made sense for a guitar or guitar amp designer to also play. I recall one bass amp engineer who didn't play and he didn't last... It was also brutal to listen to him working on an amp. His replacement could make pleasing sounds come from the boxes he was working on (My office was upstairs from his for a time).

In my experience managing engineers. designing other than musical instruments (I consider guitar amps part of the instrument), my best engineer was coincidentally NOT a musician. In my life time experience I have known very good engineers who were, and very good engineers who were not musicians, so from my perspective, there is no correlation either way.

If anything the engineers I knew who were players, were more successful engineers than players, while several played well enough gig locally and actually get paid for it. Probably more opportunities for gainful employment as engineers. About the only obvious example of success at both is the muso (Tom Sholz) from "Boston" who designed the Rockman etc...

I have heard music skills are supposed to be good for childhood brain development, and I was given piano lessons as a kid, but I had zero affinity for playing and when given a choice I never looked back.

JR

 

[amorris@home]

Ive been thinking about this concerning music. Because I dont like music that is written, performed etc by only 1 person. music IS the communication between several people. thinking about though, the orignal creation usually comes from one artist, to be added to by the others. what do you guys think?

 

[AnalogPackrat]

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?

I agree in many cases, but...

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.

Interesting point.  One major difference is that engineers who make things generally have to deal with the limitations of the physical world.  When we "cheat" we're really just making a sneaky tradeoff.  TNSTAAFL.  Software is an exception sometimes, but even there the limits are real (you can only do so much computation per unit time, etc.).  In the financial case we had people gaming the system, where the system (of rules) was deeply flawed.  Maybe that argues for having scientists, mathematicians, and engineers involved in making the rules.  We're better at seeing the problems and devising something that is less susceptible to manipulation.  But then most scientists, mathematicians, and engineers I know don't want to work with politicians and lobbyists every day.

A P

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Oh well,, that explains my shoddy design work, I'm not a muso..  ;D

Well, I said I was biased!  For one thing I'm more likely to enjoy working with people who have similar interests so I end up having musician friends from past jobs.  Self selection at work.  I guess another, less offensive, way to put it is that maybe musicians make good engineers, but not necessarily all good engineers are musical.

At my last day job there were lots of musicians working in all capacities. It just made sense for a guitar or guitar amp designer to also play. I recall one bass amp engineer who didn't play and he didn't last... It was also brutal to listen to him working on an amp. His replacement could make pleasing sounds come from the boxes he was working on (My office was upstairs from his for a time).

Sure.  I've never worked for a company making music-related products.

In my experience managing engineers. designing other than musical instruments (I consider guitar amps part of the instrument), my best engineer was coincidentally NOT a musician. In my life time experience I have known very good engineers who were, and very good engineers who were not musicians, so from my perspective, there is no correlation either way.

One example that stands out is Leo Fender, of course.  He couldn't play, but he listened to what the players told him about his products.  Worked out pretty well for him, didn't it?

If anything the engineers I knew who were players, were more successful engineers than players, while several played well enough gig locally and actually get paid for it. Probably more opportunities for gainful employment as engineers. About the only obvious example of success at both is the muso (Tom Sholz) from "Boston" who designed the Rockman etc...

When I said "musician" I really meant it in the very general sense of having some level of skill and interest in playing an instrument, not necessarily being a prodigy or anything.  Scholz is another interesting case.

I have heard music skills are supposed to be good for childhood brain development, and I was given piano lessons as a kid, but I had zero affinity for playing and when given a choice I never looked back.

I had a similar experience with a different outcome.  Wanted to play guitar, but parents preferred piano.  Grandparents donated nice old upright and I started lessons at age 8.  At about 12 I started to lose interest and got into concert band at school--chose trumpet.  Played in concert and marching band through high school (band geek!).  In college I returned to keyboard and played in a (mostly) cover band for a short time.  Picked up guitar around that time and rarely play keys anymore.  Now am playing a little bass, too, which I find enjoyable--wish I had tried it about 20 years earlier!

A P

 

[JohnRoberts]

While this may be not widely accepted, the financial derivatives, did have a credible function and utility. They were abused by people who either didn't understand the risk, or didn't want to know. Those instruments of mass wealth destruction, are not gone, but will be properly traded with accurate price discovery, to prevent another future bubble.
=======

Only politicians would ignore the laws of physics... and basic economics as they continue to spend money we don't have. Lets hope todays election is a shot across the bow of their grand designs on our future earning power, which they seem to be damaging in the same process.

I would like for all politicians be required to pass basic tests in math, science, and lie detector, before being given so much spending power.

JR

PS: While I am not a fan of the whole global warming power grab (It's not nice to fool mother nature), an interesting suggestion from some economists with a more thoughtful approach to such matters, is that we could pump enough sulphur into the upper atmosphere to cause global cooling (like we experience after major volcanic eruptions), for a small fraction of the cost of all this carbon cap arm waving. I would endorse this alternate approach (<< stimulus bill) but I am not yet convinced we have a problem, worth the unintended consequences of proposed actions.

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/the-superfreakonomics-global-warming-fact-quiz/

 

[leswatts]

Funny how engineers make poor presidents...Carter and Hoover come to mind.

Armadinijad is an engineer too. A professor I think.  Hmm.

Les

 

[Steve Jones]

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?

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.
 

Indeed, I posted this in an attempt to point out that if employers want to stereotype their staff, then they better be prepared to be stereotyped themselves ;-)

 

[sahib]

I do not think there is anyhting wrong with stereotyping the employee or the employer. At the end of the day we all eventually fall into one category. I am not sure how I would be stereotyped but my engineer (who does all the milling and turning) for example is hitting 60 and still lives with the attitude of typical Scottish shipyard workers' environment. Boss does not know anything, everything he does is wrong and yes he should go into strike when he does not like the instruction.  He absolutely does not like working with other people, but is a great (mechanical) problem solver and creates literally miracles on the lathe and mill. God knows how many times I told him to pack and go and he told me to stick the job up my ass.  Of course a relation like that would never exist in an organisation that has strick hierarchy but at the end we deliver.

 

[PRR]

> It was financial "engineering" that created the obscure derivatives

That's not engineering. An engineer can explain why the bridge won't fall down....

> didn't understand the risk, or didn't want to know.

...or, since anything can fail, what the risks are (overload, wind, rust).

The derivatives were an observation: this trend goes with/against that trend. When the price of tea in China rises, rents in Chicago fall, etc. Nobody could explain most of these "rules". Or why selected ones at selected times produced obscene returns.

This is more like MIS-engineering.

You want a bridge to support 1,000 pounds. An engineer tells you to use wooden 2x10s. It's solid. Very solid. You get curious and test ten samples: they break at over 2,500 pounds. Hey! Sell 2,500 pound bridges for the price of 1,000 pound bridges, get rich!

And it works. You can't say why it works, but you sell ten, twenty, a hundred bridges. Before the day an under-strength beam finds an over-weight load on it, and it collapses. Or perhaps so many over-strained bridges get so saggy that people stop trusting them, and your market inverts.

> Boss does not know anything, everything he does is wrong and yes he should go into strike when he does not like the instruction.  He absolutely does not like working with other people...

These are the men who get things done. Many people are fairly useless, a few people can be "Boss" and wear a suit and solict contracts and write memos, but very few people can actually beat iron or survey irrigation or fit a motor to a need.

> he told me to stick the job up my ass.

Keep up the good work. Annoy him with stupid boss things. It keeps him going. If you slack off, leave him alone, he will get bored and find another boss to handle the mundane things like paying the bills.

 

[CJ]

what would happen if you put a utc HA-100 X on a railroad track?

a)somebody would grab it before the train got there so they could build a compressor

b)the engineer would grab with the mail hook (am i dating myself here?) so he could build a compressor

c) there would be major delamination and leakage created

lennon and mac were a pretty good team at first, then you heard the seperation paul with his ballads and stuff

engineers, are required, by law, to have a co pilot, correct? did you know the can is in the nose?

in the early seventies, engineering was not enuff.

it was the cooporate sell out route, you had to have more of a PG than that to be cool.

engineering was just the white picket fence and 2 car garage,anybody can do that,

but if you really had it together, you had a side trip/

my side trip was trying to mix scientology with cannabis, needless to say, tom cruise was Not pleased about that ,

 

[JohnRoberts]

> It was financial "engineering" that created the obscure derivatives

That's not engineering. An engineer can explain why the bridge won't fall down....

> didn't understand the risk, or didn't want to know.

...or, since anything can fail, what the risks are (overload, wind, rust).

The derivatives were an observation: this trend goes with/against that trend. When the price of tea in China rises, rents in Chicago fall, etc. Nobody could explain most of these "rules". Or why selected ones at selected times produced obscene returns.

This is more like MIS-engineering.

You want a bridge to support 1,000 pounds. An engineer tells you to use wooden 2x10s. It's solid. Very solid. You get curious and test ten samples: they break at over 2,500 pounds. Hey! Sell 2,500 pound bridges for the price of 1,000 pound bridges, get rich!

And it works. You can't say why it works, but you sell ten, twenty, a hundred bridges. Before the day an under-strength beam finds an over-weight load on it, and it collapses. Or perhaps so many over-strained bridges get so saggy that people stop trusting them, and your market inverts.

The observation/ undersized bridge beam is not far off. The CDO derivatives was a form of insurance that "should" have an actuarial basis. Born in a rising home price bubble, the actuarial experience was invalid. Any insurance can be a great business as long as you don't have to pay off claims.  But having auto insurance doesn't (shouldn't) lead us to drive down the road with our eyes closed, or eat tainted shellfish just because we have health insurance. I don't blame insurance for the bad human behavior. It was bad human judgement that lead to the bad human behavior, lots of bad judgement up and down the food chain. (Note: air bags and ABS brakes do lead to some riskier driving behavior, but again a bad human judgement issue. and further weakening of natural selection.)

Insurance is generally a good thing, when it is actually used to spread the risk of rare events across the many.. (think Lloyds and shipping insurance). Don't get me started on the repurposing of "insurance" to cover routine healthcare costs and the new Ponzi scheme being pushed in DC. They haven't even properly funded the old Ponzi scheme before they sign us up into this new bigger and "better" one.  (aghhhh).

JR





 

 

[sahib]

> he told me to stick the job up my ass.

Keep up the good work. Annoy him with stupid boss things. It keeps him going. If you slack off, leave him alone, he will get bored and find another boss to handle the mundane things like paying the bills.

I am trying my best but he ain't goin' anywhere.

But you are spot on that one has to understand what keeps a person going. He is like  a squirrel though, always bringing stuff to the workshop. He hogged one of the cupboards and filled it with stuff. His bench is 8' x 3' but about 1' x 1' area is available for work only. Building is up for sale and I told him to start taking some of his stuff home. I dropped into the workshop on a Sunday afternoon, what happens? He'd been to a car boot sale and came back with two rucksacks full of books and old tools.

 

[PRR]

> "insurance" to cover routine healthcare costs

It's not insurance. it is a "plan".

Like we buy heating-fuel up north. I can pay $500 in January and $5 in July, or I can get a "plan" which bills me $200 every month all year. For people with constant income, the plan works better.

On top of the fairly predictable routine winter-heat or doctor-visits, a medical plan adds insurance. Over 20 years my medical costs were nearly zero, then one week of gut-infection cost me $5,000. And that's peanuts: they say 2/3rd of your medical bills come the last 2 months of life, and tens of thousands of dollars is just a starting point for over-heroic efforts.

To fund the $5K midlife and $50K end-life claims, the plans want to collect from every (healthy) body all the time. Collecting money for routine bills helps keep healthy people in the plan: they see a benefit every year, rather than nothing until appendicitis or terminal pancreatitis.

Whether such a Ponzi is fair, or viable, is another question. Obviously it is viable when plans favor healthy people. Through-employer enrollment favors people who are healthy enough to work, not horridly sick. Yes, they get sick, or hide illness until they get in the plan, and plans normally take spouse and offspring without checking their health. But it clearly pays: these insurance companies, even when they whine, even when a few hit rocks, are mostly VERY rich operations.

The current system is not viable. I'm very well covered, but too many other people can't afford to use the dysfunctional medical system. I think the system would work better, for -everybody-, if doctors could examine the patient instead of the patient's money. Money-grubbing is taking too much medical-staff time. Putting more account clerks on a sick patient becomes anti-productive; see "Mythical Man-Month".

Can the government do better? Perhaps not. Surely not first-try. New Jersey made auto insurance so expensive that insurers pulled out of the state. NJ ran their own pool for residents who could not get insurance on the open market. It was a mess. They changed it, different mess. But after a while (20+ years!) they changed things enough so that the pool worked -and- insurers were willing to get back into the NJ market. So the federal health plan may not work soon, maybe not in our lifetimes. But we need to be moving that way, and take our toe-stubs and catch-22s, to get a better future for our youngsters.

Or we could teach them to save money, but that's farting against the hurricane.

 

[PRR]

> came back with two rucksacks full of books and old tools.

And next year you will be in a bind, on deadline, major client.

"How are we ever going to get this flux-clip onto that framus?"

He tosses a book at you and says "Page 67!", and before you find the page he pulls an antique flux-clip tool out of a rucksack, and has the framus all clipped. Then makes you pay the 50p he spent for the tool.

 

[JohnRoberts]

> "insurance" to cover routine healthcare costs

It's not insurance. it is a "plan".

Like we buy heating-fuel up north. I can pay $500 in January and $5 in July, or I can get a "plan" which bills me $200 every month all year. For people with constant income, the plan works better.

On top of the fairly predictable routine winter-heat or doctor-visits, a medical plan adds insurance. Over 20 years my medical costs were nearly zero, then one week of gut-infection cost me $5,000. And that's peanuts: they say 2/3rd of your medical bills come the last 2 months of life, and tens of thousands of dollars is just a starting point for over-heroic efforts.

To fund the $5K midlife and $50K end-life claims, the plans want to collect from every (healthy) body all the time. Collecting money for routine bills helps keep healthy people in the plan: they see a benefit every year, rather than nothing until appendicitis or terminal pancreatitis.

Whether such a Ponzi is fair, or viable, is another question. Obviously it is viable when plans favor healthy people. Through-employer enrollment favors people who are healthy enough to work, not horridly sick. Yes, they get sick, or hide illness until they get in the plan, and plans normally take spouse and offspring without checking their health. But it clearly pays: these insurance companies, even when they whine, even when a few hit rocks, are mostly VERY rich operations.

The current system is not viable. I'm very well covered, but too many other people can't afford to use the dysfunctional medical system. I think the system would work better, for -everybody-, if doctors could examine the patient instead of the patient's money. Money-grubbing is taking too much medical-staff time. Putting more account clerks on a sick patient becomes anti-productive; see "Mythical Man-Month".

Can the government do better? Perhaps not. Surely not first-try. New Jersey made auto insurance so expensive that insurers pulled out of the state. NJ ran their own pool for residents who could not get insurance on the open market. It was a mess. They changed it, different mess. But after a while (20+ years!) they changed things enough so that the pool worked -and- insurers were willing to get back into the NJ market. So the federal health plan may not work soon, maybe not in our lifetimes. But we need to be moving that way, and take our toe-stubs and catch-22s, to get a better future for our youngsters.

Or we could teach them to save money, but that's farting against the hurricane.

Opinions vary..  This boils down do you trust the government to spend our money more wisely than we do? Their track record demonstrates that  when "they" spend our money on other people, they are both less judicious about what they spend that money on, and how effectively they spend 'our' money.

We are in the middle of very weak economy, not gleaning much hope from the governments behavior so far. In what universe does it make sense to expand entitlements so expensive, even by the government's own numbers, which are always low by an order of magnitude?

There is a palpable sense that this is the last chance in a generation to pass this sweeping "plan" precisely because the majority of Americans don't want this, and the current majority in congress, and white house resident is a quirk of recent history not a true reflection of mainstream thought.

I have little doubt from the outcome of recent elections that the party in power will lose even more seats in 2010, and will have a real test in 2012. Entitlements once given, are historically hard to take away, so I think we all have reason to be concerned, here and now.

There is a well defined role for our central (federal) government, and IMO it doesn't extend to a nanny state that mother's us.

If folks get cold in maine because they smoked their firewood money, start walking south. If you have weeks to live and not much money, maybe it is time to die. As I am getting older and have already buried a sibling, this is not an abstract consideration to me. I do not have insurance and don't want the government "plan" (consumer option??). When I run out of money like I expect to, I plan to die...I surely don't want to take money from healthy young people to buy me a few weeks in bed.

If the government wants to do something useful there are lots of fixable shortcomings in the current health care industry. I am all in favor of reducing the cost of healthcare, but that isn't what is going on... this is a raw power grab, and huge cost increase.

Of course I could be wrong, but I don't think so...

JR

   

 

[ENS Audio]

The article is indeed poor. Worse, watered down and cliche.

  It seems that maybe theres some sort of "subtle" bit of "British" humour embedded into the general article...but is it just me to whom thinks that every article that comes out of the UK is some sort of "spoof" of some kind ..hehe(ie those wonderful scientific articles mainly written about global warming....I hope they're not being serious  ;D)

 

[JohnRoberts]

The article is indeed poor. Worse, watered down and cliche.

  It seems that maybe theres some sort of "subtle" bit of "British" humour embedded into the general article...but is it just me to whom thinks that every article that comes out of the UK is some sort of "spoof" of some kind ..hehe(ie those wonderful scientific articles mainly written about global warming....I hope they're not being serious  ;D)

The Brits have the good sense to read a disclaimer to school children before showing them Al Gore's award winning movie, pointing out the several technical inaccuracies.

The British do have a dry sense of humor, but academics will always be academics in any language, and I mean academics in the pejorative sense. Those who can do, etc...

JR

 

[sahib]

> came back with two rucksacks full of books and old tools.

And next year you will be in a bind, on deadline, major client.

"How are we ever going to get this flux-clip onto that framus?"

He tosses a book at you and says "Page 67!", and before you find the page he pulls an antique flux-clip tool out of a rucksack, and has the framus all clipped. Then makes you pay the 50p he spent for the tool.

Yeap, happens all the time and he is the guy saves us all. However, the tools are always on me.

 

[skipwave]

There is a palpable sense that this is the last chance in a generation to pass this sweeping "plan" precisely because the majority of Americans don't want this, and the current majority in congress, and white house resident is a quirk of recent history not a true reflection of mainstream thought.

It always takes a quirk to nudge affairs from a rut worn in by the immobility of mainstream thought. It runs counter to my own hatred for the virtual oligarchy, but the truth is that historically a leader with a mind flung far beyond the median stance is all that can erode an erstwhile obstacle.

I will concede a majority of citizens opposing this plan, with a caveat come toe tag of their certain opposition to any plan. It is improbable to plan for what you misunderstand and this market like The Market was catapulted by a BANG on a trajectory towards high entropy until it did topple headlong from a top-heavy teeter-totter of an overburdened structure undergirded by greed.

Sorry for the run-on, by my mind is running and running and running.

 

[JohnRoberts]

There is a palpable sense that this is the last chance in a generation to pass this sweeping "plan" precisely because the majority of Americans don't want this, and the current majority in congress, and white house resident is a quirk of recent history not a true reflection of mainstream thought.

It always takes a quirk to nudge affairs from a rut worn in by the immobility of mainstream thought. It runs counter to my own hatred for the virtual oligarchy, but the truth is that historically a leader with a mind flung far beyond the median stance is all that can erode an erstwhile obstacle.

Just a different oligarchy, grasping the levers of power (and expanding broadly into several new areas).

I will concede a majority of citizens opposing this plan, with a caveat come toe tag of their certain opposition to any plan. It is improbable to plan for what you misunderstand and this market like The Market was catapulted by a BANG on a trajectory towards high entropy until it did topple headlong from a top-heavy teeter-totter of an overburdened structure undergirded by greed.

In fact the majority is in favor of reforming healthcare.. There is dramatic disagreement about what shape the reform should take.

Sorry for the run-on, by my mind is running and running and running.

Not very easy to follow.. I hope I came close to your meaning. perhaps try meditation (or medication).

JR