Archaeologica.org

I don’t know if any of you are, were, know any, are married to one, or whatever. But I found this an interesting idea.

It sure is a hot topic among some of my friends.

This is the Oxford College paper that started the tempest in the teapot.

http://www.nuff.ox.ac.uk/users/gambetta ... 0jihad.pdf

Don’t be scared by the 90 pages. It is large font and double spaced.

This is where I first heard about it in the US. Two main articles and some sidebars.

http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtm ... =205920319

http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtm ... =206902291

http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtm ... =206902292

http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtm ... 226&pgno=1

http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtm ... =207001533


Whether American, Canadian or Islamic, (Interesting that in the distinctions 2 are nationalities and 1 is religious.) they pointed out that a disproportionate share of engineers seem to have a mindset that makes them open to the quintessential right-wing features of "monism" (why argue where there is one best solution) and by "simplism" (if only people were rational, remedies would be simple).

I don’t remember who taught me it or where I was when I learned it, but it was a door opening moment when I realized there can be more then one “right” answer to a problem.

One interesting tidbit I picked up that explains the dam project in Iran, in spite of the archeological consequences, is that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is a civil engineer.

I don't know, KB, I have several friends who are engineers, and I haven't noticed anything like these articles suggest. In fact, one of them is an atheist.

In the case of the Islamic engineers, I wonder if the chicken or the egg came first. Because if you want to blow things up....engineering would be the thing to study, I imagine.

Interesting study.

I think the mindset they are referring to isn’t so much religious as a desire for things to be orderly. To follow a set of rules.
I don’t think any Islamic engineers start to study engineering to learn how to destroy things. They want to build things. To improve things.
But they cannot understand how a society can be successful without following the same kind of unbreakable physical rules they have to follow.
Thus “social engineering.”
That is why “chaos theory” is so controversial in the engineering fields.
What kind of rules does chaos follow?

The mantra here is' not all Muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslims.'
Taking that forward, most Muslims in this country are Asian, and there appears to be a mindset amongst them about commercial success, and apparently the preferred profession is medical as bringing the most credit to the family. Behind that comes engineering, which lacks the same cachet as doctoring and is often the second choice for those unable or unwilling to study medicine for so many years.
With engineering being second choice, I am told, there is an air of failure assosciated with it, and failures not infrequently justify their failure by blaming others.

I had not thought of that distinction but you may be right on the “racial” vs the “religious” aspect.
On the US west coast especially, the Asian engineering population is huge. And they seem to like things the way they are.
Perhaps is because of a more free form, capitalistic, history in the area they grew up?

My experience with engineers (I being one) is they tend to possess many skills and as indicated by the articles do tend to see things in orderly ways. In others, words designed, not random.

And I think if you were inclined to recruit someone for a radical cause which required possible diverse skill sets to carry out objectives, an engineer would be a logical choice.

But I think if it is true that engineers are disproportionately represented among terrorist organizations it is probably because they can not find engaging work, not necessarily because of idealogy. Although once someone enters a powerful ideological environment, there is a nasty tendency to adopt the thinking as a form of survival instinct.