rec.bicycles.tech, rec.bicycles.misc, rec.bicycles.soc

THE DESTRUCTIVE CERTAINTY OF THE UGLY ENGINEER

by Andre Jute

The quoted text below is from a thread on "Planetary Hubs Reaction
Torque". My contribution to the technical subject stands in that
thread. Here I want to talk about the attitudes of engineers, and have
therefore snipped the *technical* details to leave only the revealing
attitudes.

The sequence thus far. Someone asks a question about torque arms on
hub gearboxes. I give him a comprehensive and correct reply. Clive
George, possibly trying to make a clumsy joke, gives him clearly wrong
facts. Jobst Brandt then quotes Clive George in full without
correcting him, after which Brandt goes off on a tangent that has
almost nothing to do with the question and is in addition obscurely
phrased. At this point, I twit Brandt for his glaring assumption that
anything he says, however irrelevant, is a pearl of wisdom, and for
overlooking, in his rush to impress us with esoteric knowledge, the
factual errors George made:

Jute:
Gee, Jobst, you should have been a high school teacher: you can make
doubtful relevance and outright irrelevance into an art form.

"jim beam" then chimes in:
masterful understatement.

Jute:
That the
art form is egotism shouldn't disturb you.

Meanwhile, while you were stroking your own, you let the Welsh git get
away with some gross errors. You're slipping, man. We expect better
vigilance from you.

"jim beam" then reproaches me for even expecting better from Brandt.
I've snipped the technical detail to leave only the destructive and
intolerant attitudes which (I hasten to add, lest anyone think I'm
kicking "jim beam" in the gonads for daring to contradict me a few
weeks ago, and for not apologizing when he was repeatedly proved
wrong) are shared by Brandt and a lot of other techies everywhere on
the net, not just on RBT. This is a pot and kettle situation between
rival ugly techies.

"jim beam":
how can you expect "better" from a guy that could never get it right in
the first place??? timmy mcnamara's recent regurgitation of jobstian
misunderstanding of [snip techie stuff] .
if the great and mighty jobst brandt had stayed
awake in class, and ever had the ability to think analytically,
consideration of [snip techie stuff] would
have allowed him to grasp reality. instead, we have a sad misconception
polluting the knowledge pool, not only because of failure, but because
of ego refusing to actually do the only thing [he?] ever claimed to support -
get competent technical peer review.

****

Engineers are, generally speaking, and even today amid the general
decline of first class education in the West, among the most
intelligent and intensively educated members of society. Unfortunately
they are also self-selecting from among the ugliest people in society,
to the extent that when Time Magazine asked "Why are engineers the
ugliest people in society?", hardly anyone was outraged at what
elsewhere would have been stereotyping. We needn't go into that
further.

Here I want to discuss only one, very unhelpful by-product of the way
engineers are educated, which then reinforces the arrogance with which
they start out, which arrogance is itself further intensified by the
elite attitudes extant in every engineering school I've ever observed.
Engineering is applied physics. Engineers therefore have their heads
crammed full of facts to the exclusion of almost anything else,
certainly culture and even good manners. Because of the (probably
necessary) emphasis on hard, provable and useful facts, most engineers
even have a poor grasp of fundamental hypothetical scientific tests,
at the level where it is as useful to disprove your thesis as to prove
it. Such engineers as ever do development work are almost always
trying to prove something practical, and regard disproof as a failure
of the knowledge by which the hypothesis was constructed. In short,
engineers are guys who know things, and who pride themselves on
knowing things to the exclusion of almost everything else. It is
therefore not surprising that some of them come to believe that they
know everything and should not be contradicted on any subject they
condescend to speak on. (Brandt's ideas of the civic duties of the
police vis a vis cyclists are absolutely hilarious -- and very
dangerous for cyclists.)

Let me say that again for the shorter attention spans: engineers, and
more generally the more esoteric techies too, are people who know
things, and who pride themselves on knowing things to the exclusion of
almost everything else. Things are physical, eh?

From this it follows in time, during which the bonds of engineering as
the applied physics of things are loosened from the mothership of
physics as universal *ideas* of cause and effect to be proved or
misproved, that engineers in practice say nothing until they believe
they can make a definitive statement on some subject. Having made what
they believe is a definitive statement, they then take it as a
personal and professional affront to have that "definitive" statement
questioned.

Ask yourself, how often have you heard any alpha engineer say, "I may
be wrong, this may only be a wild idea, but..." You haven't, because
an engineer who behaved so much outside the bounds of professional
propriety (in this case read "in-your-face certainty") will soon lose
the respect of his peers.

****

All of this is pretty tiresome and counterproductive. As I pointed
out, and forced Jobst to admit, there is error, or at the very least a
misleading statement, that has been allowed to stand in his book "The
Bicycle Wheel" through umpteen editions and reprints. The key thing
isn't the error -- I shall return to its relative insignificance in
the scheme of things -- but the stubborn refusal to admit even the
possibility of error.

Contrast the way everyone else works. When I write a book it is
subject to review by several kinds of editors even if it is a novel.
If it is a non-fiction book it is subject to peer review. If none the
less an error slips through and is pointed out to me by a reader, I
say polite thanks and correct it in the next edition. Thus, knowledge
is improved by steps. No guilt attaches to errors unless caused by
negligence; blame is not distributed.

I say again, that is not the engineering way. For engineers it is all
or nothing. What they say is perfect (and complete) or they aren't
supposed to say it.

****

Jobst therefore views his book as a final statement, by definition
incontestible.

I (an economist and psychologist and artist) view Jobst's book as a
framework of more or less believable facts and *opinions*, a good
start on knowledge. I'm less concerned with the error I've proved (and
I proved it so easily when others failed for years simply because I
don't really care whether I'm right and Jobst wrong) than that there
should be discussion to discover whether there are alternative
credible views for the uncommited, non-partisan to try.

"jim beam", some kind of a specialist metallurgist, sees what bothers
me in Jobst's book as an error without any shading of opinion. More,
for him a single error condemns the entire book -- and the author.
This is just the flipside of Jobst's own opinion, that knowledge on
any subject is either perfect or it is nothing.

Both the Brandt view and the "beam" view are engineering views. Both
undermine the furtherance of knowledge. Both are counterproductive to
the spread of knowledge. Both are ugly obsessions. Neither has any
place in a hobby or in polite society.

****

Humans are fallible even if engineers claim not to be. That is what
gives too many engineers their appearance of inhumanity. In fact, as
we know, and common sense should tell even those without close
acquaintance with engineers, engineers are fallible too.

Human fallibility, expressed as the incompleteness of knowledge, is
the engine of progress.

****

The engineers among my friends, mostly from automobiles, are
thoughtful, humane and cultured. But, if you think on it, they would
be, wouldn't they? It is just another form of natural selection that
my engineers are beautiful minds and yours are ugly -- because you let
them be.

Andre Jute
Charisma is the talent of infuriating the undeserving by merely
existing elegantly
Visit Jute on Bicycles at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/...20CYCLING.html

Copyright 2009 Andre Jute

Andre Jute wrote:
- much snip-
I (an economist and psychologist and artist) ...


Actual advanced degree in economics or a dilettante (like me) ?
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

A Muzi wrote:
:: Andre Jute wrote:
:: - much snip-
::: I (an economist and psychologist and artist) ...
::
::
:: Actual advanced degree in economics or a dilettante (like me) ?
:: --
:: Andrew Muzi
:: www.yellowjersey.org/
:: Open every day since 1 April, 1971

He also blows smoke.

Pat