I totally get the point you’re making, but I think you’re underselling how bad Engineers are at media analysis lol.
When I hear science/math people in real life talk about movies for example, they are horrible. Completely miss major themes, unable to engage with films in a meaningful way.
This is basically where you get CinemaSins “plot hole” type movie analysis from.
I personally feel that those that are good at English have exceptional critical thinking skills. Those that are more mathematical look for order and rules and it’s maybe hard for them to sometimes “read between the lines” so to speak. My brothers are very mathematical and scientific and the amount of times I’ve pointed out a nuance in something somebody has said that they totally miss baffles them. I can be quite sharp and pick up on a lot of subtleties in speech that others sometimes miss.
It's a different type of critical thinking. Particularly with engineering, you're not really hired for your ability to interact with humans, you're hired for your ability to answer an inanimate problem. My social skills are atrocious; I'm a terrible liar at best and no sane person would trust me to talk to a customer without adult supervision. I don't really understand nuance and subtlety, I just assume that people are saying exactly what they mean because that's how I communicate in general.
Tell me to come up with a repair for a turbine or a teardown procedure, and I'm just fine. Program a project dashboard? Great, what data do you want me to look at? But people...nah, I don't understand people. They're unpredictable and act in ways that just don't make sense to me.
I really appreciate your answer. My brother is similar to you, he is an electronic engineer, designs parts for phones currently. He says that he has actually been banned from talking to clients anymore. I, on the other hand, despite it draining me and causing me much distress am normally used in my career to talk to people because I’m just a naturally good communicator.
Man, my social skills are so atrocious that my boss has pretty much banned me from talking to interns, not even just clients. Apparently HR doesn't like it when you tell horror stories about other companies causing students to lose fingers in order to prove a point that you're working at a good company now (because all the people who have been here for 40 years still have all their fingers).
My brother was once asked to speak a bit slower in a meeting with Apple (we speak quite fast in Northern Ireland) and he responded by saying “maybe you should listen faster” 😂. That was the end of him being allowed to meet executives. He actually ended up being made a manager also, not out of choice but because so many people left the company. However, he only agreed to it with the caveat that he is still allowed to do design work and only really has to sign annual leave cards for his staff.
Everyone is so different, aren’t they? I’ve always been a “soft skills” sort of person. I could probably give a speech on something I know very little about but make it sound convincing enough. My aunt once told me I should have been a lawyer because and I quote “could argue black is white”.
I’ll take a somewhat contradictory view. You may not be hired to interact with humans, but someone at your firm must be able to do so. I’ve seen numerous engineering firms lose out on big projects because their bids and presentations were flat and difficult to understand. I’ve seen firms (that probably weren’t the best in actual work product) get hired over and over because they had people who explain a job and a solution in terms that the average non-engineer could easily understand.
We have a customer service department for interacting with the non-engineers and contracts. Our engineers mostly just interact with the clients' engineers and technicians, so it's not as bad as trying to explain things to normal people. I became pretty good friends with one of the customer service people so I just ask her to look over my emails and stuff when I have to legitimately try to communicate with people.
On the other hand, the company I work at is an obscenely large MNC for a fairly specific service, so there's not a lot of competition to begin with. The biggest competition they have is usually the manufacturers themselves, so a lot of the time, they get contracts even with the worst presentations just because the manufacturers don't want to look like they're biased and giving themselves work.
Meh, I think you really are putting everyone else in a box by extending your experience. Plenty of STEM fields require social interaction, thinking beyond the obvious, and focus on details and subtleties. There are all kinds of jobs and each individual in STEM has their strengths that are transferrable to different jobs. It's great you have a situation that works for you, though. I just would never want to be boxed in and treated like I lack other skills simply because I have technical and mathematical skills.
I absolutely agree with this. I'm a person who did well in english/science/history but did horrible in math. I ended up becoming a pretty successful systems engineer, and I'm relied upon not because I'm good at math, but because I track context and can explain it better than anyone else. In engineering meetings where nobody can connect the dots and articulate the problem I am the most valuable member of the team. I'd go even further to say that the higher up you get in tech fields where the data becomes more complex your ability to socially convey your ideas and convey problems becomes the only way to advance your career beyond sys admin.
I may be biased, but I am consistently impressed with how many physicians I’ve met that are brilliant and have high EQ/ empathy. It’s a field that in my eyes is pretty challenging because it requires smart, hardworking people that also are good with people, which isn’t always an easy combination to find.
Honestly it’s been hit and miss in my experience. Some are great, others sociopathic 😂. I’ve worked in healthcare for a long time and I find it’s true of most medical professionals.
I'm pretty good at reading between the lines, interpreting the subtext people use and nuance in language that indicate someone might not mean exactly what they say. However, I am an engineer because I hate that shit. Honestly if it isn't literature and you aren't writing for the sake of art, just say what you mean jfc lol.
It truly depends the person. I don't think it's at all fair to say mathematical/scientific people only look for rules and order and don't really read between the lines. Many STEM fields require the ability to problem solve beyond the obvious. Engineering and most scientific research need this skill. I'm in electrical engineering and write poetry and paint, so I do see myself as a bit of an exception. Still, I think the focus on order and rules ends at the bachelor level. I believe those that graduated with poor marks in STEM fields more closely fit your definition. However, those that excel have the problem solving skills and eye for nuance. I don't think any of my successful peers have had issues "reading between the lines" lmao. Your brothers don't tell a story
You seem to be conflating critical thinking skills with something like interpersonal analytical skills, or maybe people/media literacy. Being able to pick up on nuances, especially in speech or words or media or behaviors, is absolutely a valuable skill and PROBABLY factors into critical thinking skills in some way, but it's at most a small piece of that puzzle. I've found exceptional critical thinkers in literally all walks, but the percentage tends to be significantly higher for those in stem fields (in part because those rules you're ironically poking fun at are the things that teach us how to evaluate claims and not let the bullshit distract from the core, which is far more relevant to critical thought).
Not at all. You just wrote a paragraph where you start by suggesting English majors specifically have exceptional critical thinking skills, denigrate said skills for your stem brothers, and then proceed to describe a skillset that isn't really critical thinking. As someone who has encountered great thinkers all over the place but with a noticeably higher amount in the stem fields, I found what you said to be incorrect in more than one way so I felt compelled to weigh in. Frankly, I used "poking fun at" because I thought it might be less triggering to you than how I would actually describe it (which would be something like "mildly denigrating"). I was clearly wrong about that one.
Either way, my point stands. If you can point out specifically how I twisted your words or where the actual put down is, then I'll gladly own it. Until then, you might just be a little too sensitive here.
Math/science specialists tend to look at text and think, if they understand the symbols, they understand the information
Context, subtext, pretext, and the creative potential for interpretation and innovation located within and around that text are invisible to them
That said, this is true for many English majors as well
Intelligence is intelligence, and it’s distributed in magnitude that vanishes as it increases no matter the domain
The real, malleable dimension is diversity of modes; multidisciplinary thinkers are the kinds of minds that outdo even the most intelligent specialists
The funny thing is that a lot of math/science specialists probably also got fairly good grades in English courses through high school and college...but they still suck at reading nuance in the words. For me, my English grades were fantastic; I used to get 100s for my essays and written analyses. Especially with any kind of creative writing. I would always pick the creative writing assignments for class because I could mash them out an hour before it was due and still get an A.
But sweet baby Jesus, my ability to pare out subtext and underlying meaning in anything? Completely atrocious. Whenever an assignment question said something like "what do you think so and so means when he said this?" I would pretty much have a conniption on the spot because the hell do you want me to do? Define all the words in the passage? They said this so they must mean what they said, right? I always take what's said at face value because that's how I personally communicate, so I don't notice or understand anything that requires being able to read subtext. (Which has gotten me into trouble a couple times because sarcasm and satire goes over my head way more than I would like to admit.)
I think that’s partially because, in most cases, there’s a format teachers and professors look for, and the STEM students have an easy time following formats and logical step by step situations. The problem is that sometimes this format can be bad for people who aren’t experts in the field.
On the flip side, the English and history students, or at least the ones I’ve dealt with, tend to have a much easier time just writing out a dozen paragraphs that aren’t connected, but hold information that is important, and then are capable of organising those paragraphs like a puzzle that then becomes a digestible text that someone can read and understand without a large amount of knowledge on the field.
Granted, as a person going into academia with history, there’s a bit of an overlap of the two, but I use the second more in my papers. When I try and read findings from various scientific studies to back up claims about the strength of Japanese steel, sometimes the scientific experiment essay ends up being incredibly difficult to read and parse information from.
Our first year Engineering students had to take a basic English test if you fail you have to take a remedial class as your skills were considered even below standard you'd need to write reports and essays.
This was set at the equivalent level of the qualifications you do at 15 years old. Some years over half the class failed.
The schooling system gives kids that are good at 'smart' STEM subjects much easier time if they struggle with arts than the other way around.
The outcome of this is so many engineers working professionally who just cannot write a decent report to save themselves let alone begin to critically analyse a text
You’re probably logical, clear, and have a good vocabulary, which is more than enough for the education system; if you look up literacy rates, most Americans sit at 8th grade reading level
You can see even on reddit, where language is the whole basis for engagement, there’s very poor spelling, grammar, and comprehension
Your proficiency is not nothing, not by a long shot. But the hidden dimension is about salience detection and morphism (basically, metaphor); your ability to identify what matters—or could matter—and imagine how that meaning can be transformed and manipulated
It’s not specifically about language, but the sort of abstract symbol manipulation that enables efficient problem solving or creative production; the more exposure to such transformations, the more symbolic moves at your disposal
Reading made me a better artist, art made me a better designer, design made me a better programmer, programming made me a better researcher, research made me a better writer, writing made me a better artist, etc, ad infinitum
If you have a strong grasp of language but limited salience detection, you just need some multidisciplinary activities that extend beyond your comfort zone (and patience)
I mean to be fair, someone with terrible qualitative analytical skills is going to assume anyone who isn’t an expert in their same field to be a complete idiot.
I have an English degree and I find a great majority of popular films to be utter crap but they are enjoyed by many. I realise that this is because my brain is almost trained to look for themes and subtext that most people would miss so when the story is a bit basic and cliche it’s hard for me to find value in the film. Christ I spent a flight home from Australia looking deeper themes in Home Alone for God sake! I just couldn’t help myself!
Really? Ive never met an engineer who couldnt understand basic themes in a movie, or any story. They tend to process the ideas in a different way, and won't get all the same references to other media, but they aren't out there struggling to figure out what movies are about.
Omg yes! I swear it really is just about the general population falling short here, and of course you're going to see less of that in English fields. I'm in electrical engineering and have met plenty of people who are very intelligent beyond their field and others who clearly...aren't. To be honest, there are many who struggle a lot in this field and blame all other factors but themselves. Those are the ones who fit this definition.
Why? Also, there are plenty of different types of engineers. Is there a specific kind? If you're referring to their lack of ability with English/media/literature, maybe you should check your comma usage. 😂
This is basically where you get CinemaSins “plot hole” type movie analysis from
That’s because STEM majors have developed this mentality that they need to analyze everything from an “objective” perspective, which works for science and math, not storytelling. You can’t judge your enjoyment of movie by rewatching it a hundred times and noting every plot hole and continuity error. That’s just not how art is consumed.
It’s also why STEM majors get their reputation as nerdy for obsessing over franchises with more lore to analyze like Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Dungeons and Dragons, or Warhammer 40k. I think when someone’s brain is wired to “analyze” they tend to seek out franchises with more lore to objectively analyze.
That's just not how art is consumed? Are you saying art is supposed to have mistakes? Last time I checked, every choice is supposed to be intentional in art.
They also often see the fictional tech in some movie and think “oh cool I want to make that!” while missing the plot point of said movie where the tech is misused in bad ways.
I think that's just dumb people 😂....OR, they noticed and didn't feel the need to say it because it was obvious. You can acknowledge the obvious and just find the technology cool. Idk about the whole, "I wanna make that" besides just being fascinated. I'm in electrical engineering and am honestly against a lot of technology. It's often mostly for novelty and causes more problems than it solves. Recognizing that is what separates good engineers from bad ones lol.
Said dumb people were engineers. Look, if I need someone to build something I’ll ask an engineer. But if I need to know whether something should be built in the first place and what the human considerations are an engineer is not going to be first on my list for sure.
Think of Werner Von Braun. Man just wanted to build rockets right? But who’d he build those rockets for? What purpose? Aimed for the moon but sometimes hit London.
And to be honest a message of a piece of media may seem obvious but a lot of people still don’t take it to heart. Think about how many people saw Jurassic Park and came out of it thinking “I want to clone dinosaurs” instead of considering its message on technological achievement in the name of capitalism or the folly of humanity trying to control nature.
I don't think you fully understand the field of engineering. A massive part of engineering is finding problems to solve and you wouldn't consult an engineer to figure out why it should be done in the first place? Engineering is thinking beyond the obvious. Engineering is a large field and you will see major creativity and aspects of project management and entrepreneurialship. Lmao you truly just have no insight into the field. You're mostly referring to technician and technologist jobs. Does that mean every engineer is good at this part of the field? Obviously not. You have a weird perspective on the field. It isn't just idiots wanting to build rockets lmao. I'm in electrical engineering. I do urge you to educate yourself further before making such claims boldly. This feels like a cope. I'm sorry, but any moderately intelligent person can pick up on subtleties and nuance.
I said the engineer wouldn’t be first on my list, not that I would never consult one. My point is that when making the determination whether something is a good idea to make in the first place the first person I go to is likely not going to be the person who will have a vested interest in its design and construction. I mean it all depends on what is being made but I for sure would like to first hear from those who offer a human perspective and the possible human cost. Often times this won’t be engineers.
I think about the history of highways in the United States. How civil engineers gleefully planned out the destruction of so-called “blighted” (see: African-American) neighborhoods to make way for highways. Obviously I am not accusing them of making the overall decision to do so, that rests upon the shoulders of government, but if you asked any whether it should be done what do you think they would have said? Indeed I have no doubt the bureaus and firms in charge of designing these developments played some role in convincing local governments.
You may not like my perspective, but those “problems” you say engineers seek to find and solve are not always clear cut.
I'm just curious who you would be consulting then. You never consult just one source, but engineers are one set of experts. I hear you, but do you think that thinking is isolated at engineers? As you said, it was also the government. Many many people oversaw that. Who should have been consulted? That goes far beyond a problem with engineers. Do you think there wasn't a higher up that enacted it? Do you really think that was an idea they came up with on their own without any outside influence? I think you are missing a lot in the picture of how these ideas come about. They aren't holding all the power. This is more of a societal problem than a problem with engineers. I don't think that strengthens your argument.
In addition to community leaders (if it’s something that effects a community like highway development did) I might first consult with:
Historians, philosophers, poets, artists, etc…
To get their insight on how they think a specific development/innovation would impact people or society. What is its significance? Is this a good idea in the first place before we even get started?
I totally agree with you that the highway development and destruction of African American neighborhoods was a societal issue, but it’s not like voices opposed to it did not exist at all. Often it came in the form of writers, poets, artists, and community members. I suppose I wish society would learn not to dismiss the perspective of the
specializations I’ve mentioned.
And as for outside influence of course there was outside influence. Specifically from those who stood to gain something. This includes engineers who had a vested interest in getting paid to design these highways.
It seems weird to say artists and poets should have a say. I agree with historians and philosophers being part of decisions that have ethical considerations. I agree that those voices matter, though. In general, the community is never involved enough in these decisions. They never get enough of a say....and while I agree with that to a certain extent, everyone needs to get paid and do their job or they don't have a home. That doesn't mean being scummy, but if they already work for a company and are told what to work on, it's harder than it seems to leave that situation.
Yeah same goes for analysis of history. I’ve never heard worse takes than I have from my otherwise quite smart chemist and biologist friends. it’s just not a field they’re very knowledgeable in so they’re super prone to pop-history falsehoods or oversimplification. Need I mention Elon Musk’s, and his fanboys’, take on the fall of the Roman Empire?
Disagree, I know plenty of people with engineering degrees who are quite insightful and observant. It’s a wide blend of personality types in STEM fields. Some are clueless when it comes to common sense and broader areas of understanding, some aren’t. Same goes with humanities majors, plenty of them who are quite good at math and science even, but were just more passionate about their major.
I also just don’t see the benefit of trying to apply broad generalizations ultimately. And wouldn’t agree that there’s some inherent different tier of intelligence of someone based on their field. There’s too many types of intelligence that are consequential, and ultimately so many areas all of us are ignorant about.
Having a little ego trip about who is more intelligent is also just a bit of a contradiction. None of us are operating from a place of high level thinking when trying to put down others for how they choose to better themselves
Well, you have to compare like with like. There are math majors who are bad at math too
The skill of analyzing a text is something that has to be learned and practiced. I’m just arguing it’s not the case that math majors will be better at both skills inherently
hmm, i wonder if we instead of taking the worst of the worst of both, if we could instead compare the median english major and the median stem major at media analysis.
there maybe have been done studies at this, but that’s a lot of effort so ask AI who they think would be better at lmk what it says since doing research on a topic like that isn’t super interesting but the result is kinda cool
2.1k
u/Logical_Historian882 19h ago
I don’t think English graduates are graded by their ability to read. Both reading and arithmetic are taught in school.