Alternatively....Engineers are normal human beings, and those entering the "caring" professions are actually more empathetic that the norm?
Not that I have any feelings about the whole thing anyway...apparently.
A study carried out by psychology researchers in Sweden has shown that people who go into engineering are less caring and empathetic than those who enter professions such as medicine. Chato Rasoal and his colleagues determined this by surveying 200 students from six different study programs, using a "well-established …
... how many of those women who you dated, impregnated and then left to move on and impregnate another woman (not to mention the children who have a dad spread among four other families) would class you as caring and empathetic?
When engineers produce a rather dubious definition of what caring an empathetic actually are, the study starts to look meritorious! :D
Actually, all normal people have different levels of empathy.
If you do a fair bit of reading about Neurology then you might be interested to learn that contrary to the prevailing social agenda people are very decidedly not born equal, or anything like it. There are 9 (currently recognised) areas in the brain (namely motor control, object recognition, spacial processing, attention span, language, memory, executive function, emotion, and artistry) that will function at different levels in any person.
One could postulate that people with better systematising and memory skills are more likely to be drawn to engineering or technical fields as these fields reward people with a better memory and the ability to think logically.
Meanwhile, people with above average motor control, spacial recognition and spacial recognition and likely to go into which kind of area? Kind of alarming, when you think about the fact that the mental attributes that you are born with are likely to decide the general course of your entire life.
I mean me, not you.
The current use of the term all people are created equal is incorrect. Firstly it must be taken in the context of its time; there was no IVF.
Bluntly, it means as my mother so succinctly put it and she was quoting some ancient Roman, " Everyone is born between the piss and the shit." That's it.
"kind of alarming, when you think about the fact that the mental attributes that you are born with are likely to decide the general course of your entire life."
Alarming to whom? Sounds pretty obvious to me. If you're born thick you're going to end up in a lousy job, on welfare or a sportsman. If you're born smart then you'll (probably) end up in some academic or white collar profession.
Kind of alarming, when you think about the fact that the mental attributes that you are born with are likely to decide the general course of your entire life.
Most people, I suspect, "go with the flow" and do something that takes advantage of whatever natural abilities they discover they posess. Innate ability AND determination, that's a path to the top.
A few will choose to do it the hard way and succeed by sheer determination. Fine if that's a free choice. A recipe for terrible unhappiness for all concerned if the path is imposed by others (typically parents).
It's another facet of the old nature / nurture debate.
Because I severely limited what I was posting so I didn't bore everybody to death. Suffice to say those are the major areas.
Minor areas cover things such as sensitivity to particular inputs such as touch, light, smell, sound are also on a sliding scale. (see sensory processing disorder for the extreme) People with a low sensitivity to sound are quite likely to prefer loud heavy rock music, where at the other end of the scale your likely to find people liking the more delicate instrumental music, and that's just the really obvious starting points.
Actually, I am going off Slashdot because so many cold, vengeful, authoritarian people seem to want to use it to propose their simplistic, mechanistic solutions for human problems. If they are not demanding the right to own automatic rifles because the bad guys have semi-automatics, they are demanding that everybody over the age of about 5 be taken to court for minor offences.
I do wonder why there was not a control group. There's an implicit one from the design of the test they used, but is that enough.
(The family statistician tells me that without a control group of some kind, you cannot really distinguish their claim from your hypothesis, but he'd have to read the original paper to decide how stupid they might have been.)
From personal experience of social science practitioners, they have no control group for one of two reasons. Either they don't understand the importance (or possibly the concept, it can be very hard to tell the difference) or because it prevents them getting the result they are after in order to draw their pet conclusion.
I'll bet engineers are a lot more empathetic than what I'd call the uncaring professions. Lawyers, bankers, politicians ... the usual suspects. You don't have to be a psychopathic narcissist to be in that crowd, but it surely helps.
Engineers and programmers are far more commonly INT[JP]personality types than mere chance would suggest. Whether or not you feel that classifying personalities into sixteen groups has any more merit than IQ testing, the correlation is quite striking. These are quite rare personality types. (The rarest? I'm not sure).
I like the sentiment, but not sure it's completely true. We have it pretty easy really with our cushy desk jobs, statutory holiday time, sick days and other such benefits. Go back 2 generations and people did some really awful shit for a living, things like mining and horrid factory work in nasty, polluted conditions. Our grandparents would probably only get a few weekdays off a year, and the general difficulty of life was much higher. So what you said is a nice snappy one liner, sure, and a lot of people upvoted you but I'd imagine your grandparents would find it a bit whingey :-)
> Go back 2 generations and people did some really awful shit for a living, things like mining and horrid factory work in nasty, polluted conditions. Our grandparents would probably only get a few weekdays off a year.
Now people work for nice, enlightened companies like Zynga and EA.
Actually the summary says: 365 students from four different health care profession programmes and 115 students from two different engineering programmes
I was wondering how they compensated for gender difference so I tried to read the paper but paying $45 to find out why exactly medical people dominate the empathy category looks unreasonable.
Morealso why dollar currency for a site hosted in UK?
> ... 115 students from two different engineering programmes
> I was wondering how they compensated for gender difference
Gender difference? I'm sure that out of 115 engineering students there might have been a female one. Granted they would probably have to have examined her very closely to be sure.
Admission to a medical school pretty much guarantees a huge salary for life irrespective of whether or not you turn out to be good at dealing with people. Most degree courses don't have this guaranteed paycheck for those who don't drop out. Life as a GP is repetitive and if fun for a while, its an unimaginative or greedy kind of person who wants to spend 40 years repeating the same week so its not surprising GPs often move on to other less well paid jobs. I'd be interested to hear what psychologists have to say about the kinds of people attracted to this well paid but repetitive kind of work.
This is perhaps the most spectacularly ill-informed comment... ok, never mind, this the internet.
1) GPs are paid less than specialists.
2) Specialists do the same thing every week. That's why it's called a specialty.
3) Psychiatry is actually both well-paid and repetitive...
It seems that you are not fond of Doctors, and the best thing for you to do is to avoid all contact with the greedy rotters.
My Doc. seems to be an exeption, he actually seems to be a carining sort of youth.
He will grow out of it , as he is only up to age 47.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019