---------- To my engineering friends: > > ENGINEER IDENTIFICATION TEST > > You walk into a room and notice that a picture is > hanging crooked. > > Do you... > > A. Straighten it. > B. Ignore it. > C. Buy a CAD system and spend the next six months > designing a solar-powered, self-adjusting picture > frame while often stating aloud your belief that > the inventor of the nail was a total moron. > > The correct answer is "C", but partial credit can > be given to anybody who writes "It depends" in the > margin of the test, or simply blames the whole > stupid thing on "Marketing." > > SOCIAL SKILLS > > Engineers have different objectives when it comes > to social interaction. > > "Normal" people expect to accomplish several > unrealistic things from social interaction: > > - Stimulating and thought-provoking conversation > - Important social contacts > - A feeling of connectedness with other humans > > In contrast to "normal" people, engineers have > rational objectives for social interactions: > > - Get it over with as soon as possible. > - Avoid getting invited to something unpleasant. > - Demonstrate mental superiority and mastery of > all subjects. > > FASCINATION WITH GADGETS > > To the engineer, all matter in the universe can be > placed into one of two categories: > > (1) Things that need to be fixed, and > (2) Things that will need to be fixed after you've > had a few minutes to play with them. > > Engineers like to solve problems. If there are no > problems readily available, they will create their > own. Normal people don't understand this concept; > they believe that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. > Engineers believe that if it ain't broke, it > doesn't have enough features yet. No engineer > looks at a television remote control without > wondering what it would take to turn it into a > stun gun. No engineer can take a shower without > wondering if some sort of Teflon coating would > make showering unnecessary. To the engineer, the > world is a toybox full of sub-optimised and > feature-poor toys. > > FASHION AND APPEARANCE > > Clothes are the lowest priority for an engineer, > assuming the basic thresholds for temperature and > decency have been satisfied. If no appendages are > freezing or sticking together, and if no genitalia > or mammary glands are swinging around in plain > view, then the objective of clothing has been met. > Anything else is a waste. > > LOVE OF "STAR TREK" > > Engineers love all of the "Star Trek" television > shows and movies. > It's no wonder really, since the engineers on the > Starship Enterprise are portrayed as heroes, > occasionally even having sex with aliens. > > This is much more glamorous than the real life of > an engineer, which consists of hiding from the > universe and having sex without the participation > of other life forms. > > DATING AND SOCIAL LIFE > > Dating is never easy for engineers. A normal > person will employ various indirect and > duplicitous methods to create a false impression > of attractiveness. Engineers are incapable of > placing appearance above function. > > Fortunately, engineers have an ace in the hole. > They are widely recognised as superior marriage > material: intelligent, dependable, employed, > honest and handy around the house. While it's true > that many normal people would prefer not to date > an engineer, most normal people harbour an intense > desire to mate with them, thus producing > engineer-like children who will have high-paying > jobs long before losing their virginity. Male > engineers reach their peak of sexual > attractiveness later than normal men, becoming > irresistible erotic dynamos in their mid thirties > to late forties. Just look at these examples of > sexually irresistible men in technical > professions: > > - Bill Gates. > - MacGyver. > > HONESTY > > Engineers are always honest in matters of > technology and human relationships. That's why > it's a good idea to keep engineers away from > customers, romantic interests and other people > who can't handle the truth. > FRUGALITY > > Engineers are notoriously frugal. This is not > because of cheapness or mean spirit; it is simply > because every spending situation is simply a > problem in optimisation, that is, "How can I > escape this situation while retaining the greatest > amount of cash?". > > RISK > > Engineers hate risk. They try to eliminate it > whenever they can. This is understandable, given > that when an engineer makes one little mistake, > the media will treat it like it's a big deal or > something. > > EXAMPLES OF BAD PRESS FOR ENGINEERS > > - Hindenberg. > - Space Shuttle Challenger. > - SPANet(t) > - Hubble space telescope. > - Apollo 13. > - Titanic. > - Ford Ka. > - DeHavilland Comet. > > The risk/reward calculation for engineers looks > something like this: > > RISK: Public humiliation and the death of > thousands of innocent people. > REWARD: A certificate of appreciation in a > handsome plastic frame. > > Being practical people, engineers evaluate this > balance of risks and rewards, and decide that risk > is not a good thing. The best way to avoid risk is > by advising that any activity is technically > impossible for reasons that are far too > complicated to explain. If that approach is not > sufficient to halt the project, then the engineer > will fall back to a second line of defence: "It's > technically possible but it will cost too much." > > EGO > > Ego-wise, two things are important to engineers: > > - How smart they are. > - How many cool devices they own. > > The fastest way to get an engineer to solve a > problem is to declare that the problem is > unsolvable. No engineer can walk away from an > unsolvable problem until it's solved. No illness > or distraction is sufficient to get the engineer > off the case. These types of challenges quickly > become personal - a battle between the engineer > and the laws of nature. Engineers will go without > food and hygiene for days to solve a problem. > (Other times just because they forgot.) And when > they succeed in solving the problem, they will > experience an ego rush that is better than sex > - and I'm including the kind of sex where other > people are involved. > > Nothing is more threatening to the engineer than > the suggestion that somebody else has more > technical skill. Normal people sometimes use that > knowledge as a lever to extract more work from the > engineer. When an engineer says that something > can't be done (a code phrase that means it's not > fun to do), some clever normal people have learned > to glance at the engineer with a look of > compassion and pity and say something along these > lines: "I'll ask Bob to figure it out. He knows > how to solve difficult technical problems." > > At that point it is a good idea for the normal > person not to stand between the engineer and the > problem. The engineer will set upon the problem > like a starved Dobermann on a pork chop. > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Within 10 years, they predict that similar but more advanced machines, > equipped with artificial intelligence, will be as clever as humans. Soon > after, they say, the man-made objects could become more intelligent than > their creators -- and capable of taking over. > > -- from the serious news gatherers at CNN.com
-------------------------Embedded message follows:----------------------- Return-Path: <[email protected]> Received: from shemail.mcom.com ([198.93.92.28]) by judge.mcom.com (Netscape Messaging Server 3.5) with ESMTP id AAA1DC8 for <[email protected]>; Tue, 24 Feb 1998 17:18:30 -0800 Received: from xwing.netscape.com (xwing.netscape.com [207.200.76.40]) by shemail.mcom.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA03022 for <[email protected]>; Tue, 24 Feb 1998 17:18:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.well.com (smtp.well.com [206.80.6.147]) by xwing.netscape.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA24376 for <[email protected]>; Tue, 24 Feb 1998 17:13:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from well.com (macau-49.ppp.hooked.net [206.80.9.241]) by smtp.well.com (8.8.6/8.8.4) with ESMTP id RAA09947; Tue, 24 Feb 1998 17:13:03 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <[email protected]> List-Post: [email protected] Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 17:09:33 -0800 From: Jen Bekman <[email protected]> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: chip clofine <[email protected]>, Liesl Towner <[email protected]>, Leslie Latham <[email protected]>, janice linden reed <[email protected]> Subject: [Fwd: Engineer Identification Test] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. yuckity yuck! -- jen bekman online communitarian for hire vox: +1.415.648.4438 mailto:[email protected] -------------------------Embedded message follows:----------------------- Return-Path: <[email protected]> Received: from smtp.well.com ([email protected] [206.80.6.147]) by mail.well.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA01055; Tue, 24 Feb 1998 10:46:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from flotsam.detritus.net ([email protected] [209.60.53.17]) by smtp.well.com (8.8.6/8.8.4) with ESMTP id KAA11075; Tue, 24 Feb 1998 10:46:49 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by flotsam.detritus.net (8.8.4/8.8.4) id KAA27020 for pork-outgoing; Tue, 24 Feb 1998 10:38:25 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: flotsam.detritus.net: majordomo set sender to [email protected] using -f Received: from wired.com (get.wired.com [204.62.131.5]) by flotsam.detritus.net (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id KAA27016 for <[email protected]>; Tue, 24 Feb 1998 10:38:23 -0800 Received: from [206.221.194.66] (adam.hotwired.com [206.221.194.66]) by wired.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA19091 for <[email protected]>; Tue, 24 Feb 1998 10:41:55 -0800 List-Post: [email protected] Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 10:41:55 -0800 X-Sender: [email protected] Message-Id: <v03007803b11854397f0f@[206.221.194.66]> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-URL: http://www.hotwired.com/ To: [email protected] From: Tim Z <[email protected]> Subject: Engineer Identification Test Sender: [email protected] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: [email protected] ENGINEER IDENTIFICATION TEST You walk into a room and notice that a picture is hanging crooked. Do you... A. Straighten it. B. Ignore it. C. Buy a CAD system and spend the next six months designing a solar-powered, self-adjusting picture frame while often stating aloud your belief that the inventor of the nail was a total moron. The correct answer is "C", but partial credit can be given to anybody who writes "It depends" in the margin of the test, or simply blames the whole stupid thing on "Marketing." SOCIAL SKILLS Engineers have different objectives when it comes to social interaction. "Normal" people expect to accomplish several unrealistic things from social interaction: - Stimulating and thought-provoking conversation - Important social contacts - A feeling of connectedness with other humans In contrast to "normal" people, engineers have rational objectives for social interactions: - Get it over with as soon as possible. - Avoid getting invited to something unpleasant. - Demonstrate mental superiority and mastery of all subjects. FASCINATION WITH GADGETS To the engineer, all matter in the universe can be placed into one of two categories: (1) Things that need to be fixed, and (2) Things that will need to be fixed after you've had a few minutes to play with them. Engineers like to solve problems. If there are no problems readily available, they will create their own. Normal people don't understand this concept; they believe that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Engineers believe that if it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features yet. No engineer looks at a television remote control without wondering what it would take to turn it into a stun gun. No engineer can take a shower without wondering if some sort of Teflon coating would make showering unnecessary. To the engineer, the world is a toybox full of sub-optimised and feature-poor toys. FASHION AND APPEARANCE Clothes are the lowest priority for an engineer, assuming the basic thresholds for temperature and decency have been satisfied. If no appendages are freezing or sticking together, and if no genitalia or mammary glands are swinging around in plain view, then the objective of clothing has been met. Anything else is a waste. LOVE OF "STAR TREK" Engineers love all of the "Star Trek" television shows and movies. It's no wonder really, since the engineers on the Starship Enterprise are portrayed as heroes, occasionally even having sex with aliens. This is much more glamorous than the real life of an engineer, which consists of hiding from the universe and having sex without the participation of other life forms. DATING AND SOCIAL LIFE Dating is never easy for engineers. A normal person will employ various indirect and duplicitous methods to create a false impression of attractiveness. Engineers are incapable of placing appearance above function. Fortunately, engineers have an ace in the hole. They are widely recognised as superior marriage material: intelligent, dependable, employed, honest and handy around the house. While it's true that many normal people would prefer not to date an engineer, most normal people harbour an intense desire to mate with them, thus producing engineer-like children who will have high-paying jobs long before losing their virginity. Male engineers reach their peak of sexual attractiveness later than normal men, becoming irresistible erotic dynamos in their mid thirties to late forties. Just look at these examples of sexually irresistible men in technical professions: - Bill Gates. - MacGyver. HONESTY Engineers are always honest in matters of technology and human relationships. That's why it's a good idea to keep engineers away from customers, romantic interests and other people who can't handle the truth. FRUGALITY Engineers are notoriously frugal. This is not because of cheapness or mean spirit; it is simply because every spending situation is simply a problem in optimisation, that is, "How can I escape this situation while retaining the greatest amount of cash?". RISK Engineers hate risk. They try to eliminate it whenever they can. This is understandable, given that when an engineer makes one little mistake, the media will treat it like it's a big deal or something. EXAMPLES OF BAD PRESS FOR ENGINEERS - Hindenberg. - Space Shuttle Challenger. - SPANet(t) - Hubble space telescope. - Apollo 13. - Titanic. - Ford Ka. - DeHavilland Comet. The risk/reward calculation for engineers looks something like this: RISK: Public humiliation and the death of thousands of innocent people. REWARD: A certificate of appreciation in a handsome plastic frame. Being practical people, engineers evaluate this balance of risks and rewards, and decide that risk is not a good thing. The best way to avoid risk is by advising that any activity is technically impossible for reasons that are far too complicated to explain. If that approach is not sufficient to halt the project, then the engineer will fall back to a second line of defence: "It's technically possible but it will cost too much." EGO Ego-wise, two things are important to engineers: - How smart they are. - How many cool devices they own. The fastest way to get an engineer to solve a problem is to declare that the problem is unsolvable. No engineer can walk away from an unsolvable problem until it's solved. No illness or distraction is sufficient to get the engineer off the case. These types of challenges quickly become personal - a battle between the engineer and the laws of nature. Engineers will go without food and hygiene for days to solve a problem. (Other times just because they forgot.) And when they succeed in solving the problem, they will experience an ego rush that is better than sex - and I'm including the kind of sex where other people are involved. Nothing is more threatening to the engineer than the suggestion that somebody else has more technical skill. Normal people sometimes use that knowledge as a lever to extract more work from the engineer. When an engineer says that something can't be done (a code phrase that means it's not fun to do), some clever normal people have learned to glance at the engineer with a look of compassion and pity and say something along these lines: "I'll ask Bob to figure it out. He knows how to solve difficult technical problems." At that point it is a good idea for the normal person not to stand between the engineer and the problem. The engineer will set upon the problem like a starved Dobermann on a pork chop. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Within 10 years, they predict that similar but more advanced machines, equipped with artificial intelligence, will be as clever as humans. Soon after, they say, the man-made objects could become more intelligent than their creators -- and capable of taking over. -- from the serious news gatherers at CNN.com
