So why would engineers be more likely to become terrorists than say chemists or sociologists? it's an interesting point but perhaps not so mysterious when you consider common traits of engineers, namely,
- Engineers are handy with mechanical/electrical devices, attractive targets for the religious puppet masters.
- Engineers are on average more conservative and more religious than their pure science counterparts
- They disdain ambiguity and compromise
- They tend to be more nerdy and less socially able (easier to recruit?)
A leaked dossier from MI5 back in 2005 suggested that Al-Qaeda had a network of “extremist recruiters” that were circulating on campuses targeting people with “technical and professional qualifications”, particularly engineering and IT degrees. I studied both engineering and computer science degrees, gulp I'm feeling vulnerable all of a sudden, maybe I should quit criticising religion on this blog and get out more? :)
8 comments:
Before making sweeping generalisations, a question that should have been posed, or investigated is: are young, radicalised students directed towards certain subjects that are more useful than others, such as engineering.
Hi Carol, I suspect the radicalisation happens after the choice of degree; in the study the authors of the paper (Gambetta & Hertog in New Scientist June 2009) did explore a number of factors including utility of the subjects studied, the conclusion is that becoming a engineer and a terrorist is still very rare indeed, just that its three times more likely than any other subject. This seems quite specific to me, not a generalisation.
With a resident population of several thousand engineers (at least, it seems like that) who are quite handy at putting together Apache gunships, I dare you to come to Yeovil and tell engineers that they're nerdy and socially inept!!
Now I'm worried....
Hi dmk, I wouldn't dare they'd probably stab me with their biro's...;)
Actually I would consider myself to be an "engineer" just like the ones being described in this article, and as such feel able to cast aspersions on my "creed", a bit like a "ginger" being able to call another "ginger", "ginger" etc.
Interesting. So it's not religious people per se we have to worry about, just engineers.
I suppose a Fine Arts student is hardly going to paint you to death, after all (although it might be a lovely finish).
Hi Archdruid - religious engineers ... they're the really troublesome ones :)
Hi Steve,
I know that Gambetta & Hertzog explored other factors, but its still a generalisation. They looked at university students, not wider.
As happens most everywhere, here included, school pupils are steered towards certain subjects, taking into consideration their personal preferences and subject strengths. Add on the layer of government pressure (happens here to) for more people to study certain subjects, regardless of employment prospects. In the UK its all Maths and Science - but where will they all work?
Against that, and the stated high unemployment levels amongst engineers, the article says: 'British intelligence noted that Islamic extremists were frequenting college campuses, looking for "inquisitive" students who might be susceptible to their message. In particular, the report noted, they targeted engineers.'
The seeds of radicalisation are sown long, long, before anyone attends university. Deeply ingrained beliefs may not manifest themselves until well into adulthood. For students, university is the place where the maelstrom of ideas, beliefs, theories, questions from childhood and teens are hammered out into some sort of order. Often one person or group helps in that. This is where these 'recruiters' find thier fodder as students move from teens to adulthood.
And terror groups need engineers, the statement that the fancy degrees were of less use that box-cutters and flight school is disingenuous to say the least. Lets be honest, who can understand flight better than an engineer. Certainly not the goods-in guy who's a deft hand with a boxcutter!
Sorry I'm going on a bit in various directions. The sad thing is that articles like this feed into the narrow minded 'paranoia' that tars eveyone in the grouping with the same brush.
We should also bear in mind that the same set statistics can be used to support opposing arguments AND there are three sorts of lies:
'Lies, damned lies, and statistics'
C :)
Hi Carol, I know what you mean about statistics, and you can seldom trust these kinds of "press" interpretations of scientific work. You just need to look at the nonsense that's written about diet, cancer and "alternative" medicine to name but a few rich topics with which to sell newspapers.
I think in some cases you could indeed be right in that the seeds are sown a long time before university and studying a particular course is indeed a means to an end rather than a reflection of anything else. However in my own experience it does seem to be a certain type of person that tends to go for this type of course (particularly IT), sure that's a generalisation within the context of engineering courses but it seems less so if you consider the wider range of things that people (could) study and the numbers presented here. The conclusion is based on the *relative* numbers not the absolute ones, engineering does seem like an outlier.
As for skills, I agree that for flying a plane technical skills are certainly useful, detonating a bomb strapped to your body less so; but in the case of 9/11 for example, why not just recruit Islamic pilots, why engineers, is it coincidence? - certainly possible, but against the backdrop of these numbers not a clear-cut one.
Post a Comment