Are you too woke to be a global engineer?

Some background first so you understand what has motivated this piece. 

Some time prior to writing this blog post, I had submitted another article to The Foundation for Science and Technology. This post was about how engineering skill can be affected by background and how the reader could overcome any limiting effects through self awareness and understanding of core engineering attributes. Something you likely know is a huge area of interest to me given that I wrote a book on the topic.

The process of writing and tuning for their site went well until the very last step.

Once they posted the article I wrote, I noticed that they had removed reference to the specific countries I cited in an illustrative anecdote on the use of first principles. It’s the same anecdote about the Canadian engineer working in China that I use in my book to explore the use of first principles. However, it actually had some extra insights that I had gained after talking with Scott Tarcy on his podcast The Engineering Entrepreneur. Take a listen to that even if you have read my book - to get that extra insight Scott offered. 

I personally felt this removal of the specific countries was a case of saviourism - some might say “too woke”. 

Members of The Foundation for Science and Technology were happy when it was noted that people from an Eastern background had potential for better systemic thinking. But they felt uneasy when it was suggested that the same background might not be as well aligned with the use of first principles. It was as if they felt other groups would be OK with getting compliments from white people, but would not be able to endure receiving criticism from white people.
I should point out that I do not actually think this is a case of political-correctness or wokeness gone too far. I really have no issues with wokeness or political correctness. I simply used the word “woke” in the heading because it is more vernacular. As I mentioned above, I think this situation is a case of saviourism - something I think is much more concerning.

And that is why I am writing this piece. Because the above scenario shows that when we start to think the value of a human (in their eyes or ours) can be affected by noting their current aptitude, tendencies or proclivities, then we limit the ability of all to improve themselves.

As I argue in my book, we put the effort into understanding how background (economic, cultural, national and organizational) can affect our engineer ability so that we can then better ourselves as engineers. Never has it been argued that these attributes and abilities are fixed. 

Also, we should never think that the value of a person is determined by these abilities. I think there is another reason the editors of The Foundation for Science and Technology felt uneasy about the anecdote. They, like others, I have come to realise, be it conscious or unconscious, think that intelligence or cognitive ability is the way a human should be valued. As important as intelligence is, we should note that there are many other positive attributes humans can have:

• Kindness
• Bravery
• Selflessness
• A lust for life
• Socialability
• Enthusiasm

These are all great traits in a human that could also be used to assess their value - if you ever wanted to actually do such a thing. It’s just that they do not come up much when talking specifically about engineering cognition - even though there would be times when they would be important - something for another post.

For now though, I want to ensure that the understanding is that all engineering attributes in any engineer, even though they might be affected (and maybe even effected) by one’s past environment (from culture to economic), can be improved through practice. And that they are not a reflection on innate ability from ethnicity, nationality or any other demographic dimension.

PS
I will, in the next post, share the article that caused The Foundation for Science and Technology such concern.