Had to explain to an engineer that Wind Power is not a viable replacement of Hydro Power... Why?

Quant Bio wrote:

you must be single wrote:

Imagine some bro cornering a woman on a topic she's not qualified to give professional advice. Then he comes to a forum to humblebrag about further denigrating her.

1) She asked me out to coffee.

2) She was the one who was spewing all kinds of ignorance. That was my point. I don't fault anyone for not knowing things, but to talk out our arse, repeatedly, confidently, even after being made aware you don't really know what you're talking about, is pretty bad. I called her stupid because this is pretty basic critical thinking and logic... Even if she has a reasonably high IQ, her thinking is very unsophisticated and undeveloped, very badly so.

Funny someone else commented on engineers being this way... I've had this experience with a number of engineers. There's definitely a high ego involved. The pattern I find is that engineers TEND to be very intelligent very engineery type things (math, etc), and average to damn near mentally handicapped in just about everything else. This causes a lot of them to overestimate their intelligence and knowledge in general because they're far above average in things like math. They don't really know what to do when they meet someone whose intelligence is both high and applied across domains. They also tend to not expect anyone in biology to be equal to or above them, which might explain some of my encounters.

FWIW, I have several friends with PhDs in different engineering fields, and they all say that I'm the smartest of the group. I have spent enough time working with and around MDs and PhDs in different fields to know where I stand.

Bra-ket wrote:

Quant Bio wrote:

1) She asked me out to coffee.

2) She was the one who was spewing all kinds of ignorance. That was my point. I don't fault anyone for not knowing things, but to talk out our arse, repeatedly, confidently, even after being made aware you don't really know what you're talking about, is pretty bad. I called her stupid because this is pretty basic critical thinking and logic... Even if she has a reasonably high IQ, her thinking is very unsophisticated and undeveloped, very badly so.

Funny someone else commented on engineers being this way... I've had this experience with a number of engineers. There's definitely a high ego involved. The pattern I find is that engineers TEND to be very intelligent very engineery type things (math, etc), and average to damn near mentally handicapped in just about everything else. This causes a lot of them to overestimate their intelligence and knowledge in general because they're far above average in things like math. They don't really know what to do when they meet someone whose intelligence is both high and applied across domains. They also tend to not expect anyone in biology to be equal to or above them, which might explain some of my encounters.

FWIW, I have several friends with PhDs in different engineering fields, and they all say that I'm the smartest of the group. I have spent enough time working with and around MDs and PhDs in different fields to know where I stand.

I concur with your opining on engineers — they are often exceptionally well trained but the training comes at a cost. I had a physics professor refer to them as “mentally conditioned” — that’s a bit harsh but if you take it literally it’s true. They also really seem to assume that others “speak the same language” as them. Quantitative/Mathematical/Theoretical biologists will inherit the earth (If they read enough) because they actually have to converse across (mostly) the full domain of science to be successful.

Bra-ket wrote:

Quant Bio wrote:

1) She asked me out to coffee.

2) She was the one who was spewing all kinds of ignorance. That was my point. I don't fault anyone for not knowing things, but to talk out our arse, repeatedly, confidently, even after being made aware you don't really know what you're talking about, is pretty bad. I called her stupid because this is pretty basic critical thinking and logic... Even if she has a reasonably high IQ, her thinking is very unsophisticated and undeveloped, very badly so.

Funny someone else commented on engineers being this way... I've had this experience with a number of engineers. There's definitely a high ego involved. The pattern I find is that engineers TEND to be very intelligent very engineery type things (math, etc), and average to damn near mentally handicapped in just about everything else. This causes a lot of them to overestimate their intelligence and knowledge in general because they're far above average in things like math. They don't really know what to do when they meet someone whose intelligence is both high and applied across domains. They also tend to not expect anyone in biology to be equal to or above them, which might explain some of my encounters.

FWIW, I have several friends with PhDs in different engineering fields, and they all say that I'm the smartest of the group. I have spent enough time working with and around MDs and PhDs in different fields to know where I stand.

I concur with your opining on engineers — they are often exceptionally well trained but the training comes at a cost. I had a physics professor refer to them as “mentally conditioned” — that’s a bit harsh but if you take it literally it’s true. They also really seem to assume that others “speak the same language” as them. Quantitative/Mathematical/Theoretical biologists will inherit the earth (If they read enough) because they actually have to converse across (mostly) the full domain of science to be successful.

pupil3142 wrote:

Bra-ket wrote:

I concur with your opining on engineers — they are often exceptionally well trained but the training comes at a cost. I had a physics professor refer to them as “mentally conditioned” — that’s a bit harsh but if you take it literally it’s true. They also really seem to assume that others “speak the same language” as them. Quantitative/Mathematical/Theoretical biologists will inherit the earth (If they read enough) because they actually have to converse across (mostly) the full domain of science to be successful.

what?

In terms of geek hierachy; maths > physics > engineering.

and the 'reason' you descend the hierachy is degrees of practicality. practicality is synonymous with communication.

engineering = applied physics. physics = applied maths.

to call an engineer a mathematician is an absolute insult to all involved.

yes, i am a chartered engineer, aka a twice applied mathematician. but not a mathematician, oh no, or i would be an accountant and have more money.