Does Engineering Education Breed Terrorists?

[struggle4progress]

By Dan Berrett
MARCH 23, 2016

In May 2010, Faisal Shahzad hoped to kill dozens of pedestrians when he parked his Nissan Pathfinder near Times Square, loaded with improvised bombs. Four months earlier, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab tried to bring down a trans-Atlantic flight carrying 289 passengers by igniting explosives sewn into his underwear. Last year, Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez opened fire on two military facilities in Tennessee, killing five soldiers ...

... all six .. had studied engineering.

... Recently two social scientists, Diego Gambetta and Steffen Hertog, scrutinized the numbers and concluded that, yes, the proportion of terrorists who are engineers far outpaces expectations. Why is that? ...

Central to the debates are questions of causality: Do engineering programs select a certain kind of person, one who arrives on campus already predisposed toward acts of terror? Does something in these programs worsen some students' tendency toward extremism? Or is the relationship between terrorism and engineering simply an intriguing correlation with no deeper meaning? ...

http://chronicle.com/article/Does-Engineering-Education/235800

[jberryhill]

1. No, but it does provide sociopaths useful information

Having studied and then taught engineering for a number of years, you do get some "hey wouldn't it be cool to do this" sorts of folks whose fascination with making things outpaces their sense of what things should be made.

[struggle4progress]

2. Hey! I bet we could rig this microwave generator to this reflector and cook somebody's kidneys

from half a mile away!

[Baobab]

4. No, engineers don't think like that.

On the other hand, you COULD use that same KIND of knowledge to do very positive things. Radio astronomy, space communications, GPS, telecommunications.

Engineering is a pro-science profession,. We are surrounded by science.

We ARE science.

[struggle4progress]

10. It depends on the engineer, I think. There have been, for example,

companies that specialize in landmines; and one theory of effective landmines is that they are most effective if they produce debilitating injury without causing death, since a soldier with painfully crippling wounds is likely to shriek and moan in ways that demoralize fellow troops. We ought not pretend that people who think in such fashion simply do not exist: they demonstrably exist, and some are well paid for what they do -- though it is also quite clear that the vast majority of engineers want nothing to do with such enterprises

[Baobab]

5. Thorstein Veblen in his book "The Theory of the Leisure Class" explains

conspicuous consumption. I think that choice in professions is also understood, to be a form of signalling behavior.

Engineering stuff is fun for natural engineers. People don't need a degree to "be engineers" necessarily. But they do need to have a love of knowledge for its own sake. And pushing their own limits to learn more.

Those are the kinds of people who are natural engineers.

the history of engineering is the history of mankind and his or her use of technology to make our lives BETTER.

[Baobab]

6. People with character disorders are much more likely to enter politics or some other

highly visible, "important" profession where the skill of being able to lie well is valuable. There is probably no profession where lying is less valuable than engineering.

[Baobab]

3. This is the most preposterous thing I have ever read.

Engineering is applied science. Engineers create wealth for humanity. There is not a single bad thing people can say about engineering which makes any sense.

Engineering as a discipline is a fact based discipline Engineering programs will favor people who would make good engineers. Generally that means people who already have a good grasp of the physical world and the basics of science, math and doing things with them.

If anything, people who have a good grasp of the sciences are likely to be part of society - not apart from it. On the other hand, ignorance of science is a problem. People without a grasp of the sciences are likely to be unemployed and unemployable in the near future.

So saying things like this are not constructive!

We need better understanding of science, engineering and technology. We need more female engineers. We need diverse perspectives. NOT having a wide variety of people enter engineering is more likely to cause problems than people entering the field.

[struggle4progress]

7. The article is actually a thoughtful piece with many points of view

[Baobab]

9. What would that have to do with correctness?

nt

[struggle4progress]

11. I have arrived at a point in life where I find statements, that I agree with, much less productive

for me than statements that I suspect are wrong, but that I have some difficulty refuting

I do not read this article as an attack on engineers or engineering but as an unusual take on terrorism which deserves some careful thought, not because I find it "correct" but because it forces a productive re-examination of various issues

[Baobab]

12. But that is exactly how it will be read by others who are desperate to cut education spending

and increase the importation of non-Americans leaving millions of worthy people without jobs, and buried in debt.

[Festivito]

8. Engineers kill hundreds of people. Business and poly sci politicians kill hundreds of thousands.

During my studies we were reminded that it was engineers that built the crematoriums in Germany during WWII. Point taken.

I do not think that engineering draws more sociopaths. Rather, I think that in other countries, choices for careers are limited. Engineering, Math, Chemistry, sciences in general: good chance of placement. English majors, psychology, sociology, biology: harder to find work in another language. So, guidance counselor, sign me up for engineering.

[Baobab]

13. I don't see the US as having more of a demand for non-pragmatic ields of expertise in particular.

lets not forget that the sciences generally, have always required an advanced degree, pretty much, and that the demand in academia for people with four year degrees is nonexistent, so people with degrees in the social sciences, etc, use that as a platform to go into fields like journalism or business, it seems.

If we want to create a society with a high demand for artists, poets, playwrights designers and so on, we sure are going about it the WRONG way.

Other countries with less inequality are doing much better in that respect..

[Festivito]

15. My point being that it is more pragmatic to choose engineering, thereby, perhaps more common.

Yes, we certainly need more artists to deal with our social inequities. Businesses don't hire artists for artistic commentary on society. At least, not very often. They and we would be well served to do so. We operate with a belief in profit, not better living. IT is not serving us well. We seem to be circling the drain. Artists can lead us out. Instead we risk revolt. Unless we just choose to enter the sewer.

[bvf]

14. No. Next question.

ETA:

If not the stupidest article title ever, certainly close.

[malthaussen]

16. I'd say that's putting the cart before the horse.

If one wants to learn new and exciting ways to blow people up (or even the most efficient ways), then studying engineering would be useful, but the desire to blow people up is prior to the course studied. Frankly, I think it gives too much power to education to assert that it "breeds" anything; and if one wants to argue that engineering and the sciences pay no attention to ethics, and thus create unethical graduates, one needs to explain why such areas of education such as the law do not fail to create unethical graduates despite having courses in ethics.

-- Mal

[Baobab]

17. Does Liberal Arts Education breed terrorists?

Of course not.

However IGNORANCE clearly does breed LACK OF ABILITY TO COPE WITH THE CHANGING WORLD and marginalization and eventually serious alienation and likely, terrorism.

Yes, science is hard, math is hard, but its also FUN and its also something people do - to aspire to our highest purpose.

JOBS ARE GOING AWAY PEOPLE, FAST. AND FOR GOOD.

Do people realize that the consensus in the scientific and engineering communities is that by 2045 or so, we will live in a society where very few people 'need to work' because machines will literally do almost everything better and faster and cheaper than any person could do with few exceptions. that means that there wont be work for most people at all, it wont be a matter for people to lower their asking price, it wont be a matter for people to try harder, they just wont be employed, ever, unless its for some sentimental reason or decorative reason or familial reason or something. People arnt going to be able to postpone retirement because they cant afford to, a huge number of people, perhaps almost everybody, literally almost everybody will be retired UNLESS we rise to the challenge and make our entire lives a process of learning, and bluntly, thats our only choice besides global war and genocide because SCIENCE is hard its also CHALLENGING and FUN and REWARDING and ALTRUISTIC and therefore THE BEST MOTIVATOR, the best FOOD for our RAPIDLY GROWING BRAINS. Science is the future. The more we learn the faster we learn more.
Do people realize that? No, they don't and they are unlikely to unless they have actually worked in fields where things change dramatically from one year to the next.

Frankly, thats why we need people to realize that anybody who is telling them that education is not important or that scientific knowledge isn't for everybody, is likely got some agenda that is not a good one.

We have a great future ahead of us, but some people are terrified of everything new and they likely need to realize that if we act that way the world wont wait for us, we'll be at a serious disadvantage and will be left behind, far behind.

because science isn't some abstract thing, science is life. Its not some esoteric distant thing, its understanding the world around you. Thats basically why millions of Americans cannot find work, in part its because the bar is rising very quickly, and so reading and arithmetic that fifty years ago was enough to get by now isn't, not even remotely,


the world has changed, and whats demanded of us has changed, now science literacy requires a lot more, and frankly, Americans are falling behind, because of idiotic proposals like this one.

Also, the likelihood of people being impacted by any way by an act of terrorism is close to zero, on the other hand, the negative consequences of lack of scientific literacy are huge and they are likely to be life changing.

We especially need people from non-traditional backgrounds- to DO science. Science is DOING THINGS.

Good things.

Life is doing things.

And anybody who wants to argue with me on that I warn you, this is no joke, this country is throwing away its future because of idiot statements like this. I reject them. Any smart person would.

[cprise]

24. You are right to site ignorance

But to what extent does religion breed ignorance? I think people who want to shut out information about the world -- or be able to easily explain the world and events as "god did it" -- are drawn to religion.

As for "Science is DOING THINGS"... really, no. That's simplistic and anti-intellectual. Science is studying the cosmos and thinking about it, and collaborating or competing based on the ideas it generates (to be not quite so simplistic). When Carl Sagan spoke about intelligent life (i.e. life that can do science) he spoke in terms of KNOWING the cosmos. If science must fit a "DOING" role, then that sounds like some fascist variant which seeks certainty through constant and swift "application"... a kind of power madness.

Obsession with power, versus a dedication to discovery and reflection, does threaten science. Technology and its moneyed interests figure large in that threat, because any science that highlights what is NOT known or suggests caution and restraint is deemed unacceptable. Thus, technology can make the combination of power and ignorance attainable, even irresistible.

[bemildred]

18. Terrorists, to be effective, have to learn some engineering.

That does not make engineering a causative factor in the transformation of an obedient citizen into a terrorist.

It like saying having a license to drive causes speeding because most speeders get a license and learn to drive first. Driving causes accidents, too. No driving, hell of a lot less accidents.

The problem is that engineering knowledge is public domain and accessible to anyone with modest intelligence and adequate motivation.

And our commercial life is just awash in things that can be turned to the dark side.

Trying to censor information is probably not going to work though. Too much of it is necessary for normal life.

So you have to watch our for the smart ones, but those are the ones that are hard to catch.

[Baobab]

21. bemildred, technology is LIFE

We need more technology literacy, not less of it.

technology literacy is a prosperity machine.

If we start acting like the people in this thread seem to want us to, we're sunk as a country.

Why do you think most Americans came to the US originally?

It was to get away from that kind of thinking.

[cprise]

23. Look up "cornucopianism"

And while you're at it, consumerism.

Part of real science and technology literacy is learning the difference between the two, and when science tells us when to say 'no' to some industrial processes (which, I'll remind readers, are money-making schemes foremost).

Half of science is being skeptical... at least it has to be if it is to avoid looking like a farce. And that's why pure research is vitally important.

Technology and engineering, not so much... they tend to give rise to panglossian narratives of hype and credulity because they have something to sell. I think computerized voting exemplifies how this mindset can create big problems. Also, the industrial mindset that gave rise to "Better Living Through Chemistry" where you weren't supposed to question the validity or safety of new chemical products; It was a mindset that sought to attack scientists like Clair Patterson.

Why do you think most Americans came to the US originally? It was to get away from that kind of thinking.

Seriously - Europe is the seat of the Enlightenment, and it would be difficult to separate it from America in any scientific sense at least until the mid-20th century when Americans went bonkers for Christian fundamentalism.

[cprise]

19. Wasn't there a study showing that religious fundamentalists

are attracted to engineering (or vice-versa)?

[Baobab]

20. Let me ask you guys something, where do you think jobs are going to come from in 20 or 30 years?

where?

[bemildred]

22. Calm down. We're on the same side.

You can talk until you are blue in the face and nobody will listen. People only listen when they want to.

I expect everything will be completely different in twenty or thirty years. Remember 1985? I do. It's changing even faster now