Engineers more likely to be terrorists

For once, the slashdot commentariat are not entirely useless. Perhaps it’s because Reason magazine has not yet informed them of the logical way to interpret this information. (Beep boop. That’s what you sound like.) writes: Henry Farrel writes in the Washington Post that there’s a group of people who appear to be somewhat prone to violent extremism: Engineers. They are nine times more likely to be terrorists than you would expect by chance. In a forthcoming book, Engineers of Jihad, published by Princeton University Press, Diego Gambetta and Steffen Hertog provide a new theory explaining why engineers seem unusually prone to become involved in terrorist organizations. They say it’s caused by the way engineers think about the world. Survey data indicates engineering faculty at universities are far more likely to be conservative than people with other degrees, and far more likely to be religious. They are seven times as likely to be both religious and conservative as social scientists. Gambetta and Hertog speculate that engineers combine these political predilections with a marked preference towards finding clearcut answers.

Gambetta and Hertog suggest that this mindset combines with frustrated expectations in many Middle Eastern and North African countries (PDF), and among many migrant populations, where people with engineering backgrounds have difficulty in realizing their ambitions for good and socially valued jobs. This explains why there are relatively few radical Islamists with engineering backgrounds in Saudi Arabia (where they can easily find good employment) and why engineers were more prone to become left-wing radicals in Turkey and Iran.

Some people might argue that terrorist groups want to recruit engineers because engineers have valuable technical skills that might be helpful, such as in making bombs. This seems plausible – but it doesn’t seem to be true. Terrorist organizations don’t seem to recruit people because of their technical skills, but because they seem trustworthy and they don’t actually need many people with engineering skills. “Bomb-making and the technical stuff that is done in most groups is performed by very few people (PDF), so you don’t need, if you have a large group, 40 or 50 percent engineers,” says Hertog. “You just need a few guys to put together the bombs. So the scale of the overrepresentation, especially in the larger groups is not easily explained.”

Engineers Nine Times More Likely Than Expected To Become Terrorists

Setting aside the confounds for a moment, I’ve noticed this is loosely true in general. Engineers go off the deep end for a number of reasons, and the stereotype about paranoid schizophrenic right-wingers didn’t fall out of the sky. The fact is that all engineers have at least a touch of Asperger’s- which carries extra risk for psychosis- and some engineers are more touched than others. It also doesn’t help that many of the worst cases are angry sexless social rejects with unusually testosteronized brains. Less extreme cases might be preppers.

This is still pretty reductionist, because you’re going to find many more terrorists on the extreme left (it’s part of the ideology). Leftists’ preferred degrees are in the liberal arts and social sciences (many extreme leftists also do not enter or graduate college), and will be much more spread out than conservatives’ degrees (accounting, engineering, economics). The only thing holding most leftists back is a general paucity of testosterone, but there are enough outliers that 9 in 10 white terrorists are socialists.

This is just one more ingredient in the perfect recipe for a terrorist: a young, male, Muslim, Marxist, Semitic, sexless, angry engineer.

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Engineers more likely to be terrorists

  1. Heaviside says:

    I first read this several years ago.

    >Leftists’ preferred degrees are in the liberal arts and social sciences

    How many engineers were there in the ranks of the CPSU or the CPC? There are American “leftists” and then there are real leftists. Most American “socialists” just want more welfare, and welfare only strengthens capitalism. Welfare is just a way of allowing consumption to continue to take place even though wealth inequality should have make it impossible. Similarly, consumer credit just allows most people to dis-save even more than they already do, and because of basic accounting identities in order for one person to save another must go into debt, so it should be obvious that consumer credit is just a way of increasing the savings of plutocrats. If only American “socialists” understood something as simple as Pasinetti’s Theorem! The only way to achieve real socialism is via suppressed consumption, which is the polar opposite of gibsmedats. The Holodomor can be seen as an extreme example of suppressed consumption, but the modern form was developed in Manchuria under the “Showa period yokai,” Kishi.

    To all American poverty pimps, “poverty is not socialism.”

    Figure 1. Actual socialist

    • Heaviside says:

      The only difference which actually applies to the real world is not between “state-run” and “free market” economies, but different kinds of state-managed economies. The USA has a state-run economy which prioritizes the medical-industrial complex, institutes of higher brainwashing, a defense industry that erodes America’s ability to defend itself, real estate bubbles, financial institutions which make the country poorer, propaganda, surveillance, narcoterrorism, regular terrorism, and collective HFCS farms staffed by illegal immigrants. However, if you try to suggest the implementation of a rational industrial policy, people will accuse you of “picking winners”. Well, I guess they would prefer to stick to picking losers.

    • Heaviside says:

      Just so you don’t misunderstand me, when considering Pasinetti’s Theorem one has to keep in mind the one distinction which is most important when dealing with any aspect of economics, the distinction between money and real material stuff(RMS). Pansetti’s Theorem applies to the dollar value of the goods consumed by workers/absence of their savings and not to the RMS they consume, because if workers consume less RMS then there is more physical material which can be diverted to investment. RMS, unlike money, is “destroyed” when it is consumed. Suppressing the consumption of RMS allows you to boost the physical production capability of industry, and suppressing the spending of consumers helps counteract wealth inequality.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s