You have possibly seen the English television version of  Cixin Liu’s Three Body Problem on Netflix. But you might not have noticed how it actually demonstrates the use of the three core elements of engineering expertise I mention in my book The Global Engineer. Assuming you have gotten around to reading it.
In this blog post I am going to go through this. It can sometimes help to better understand a cognitive process when you see multiple examples of it. And the Three Body Problem provides another example - one that is sufficiently unique that it might help you more than others.
If you have not seen the series (or read the books or seen the Chinese series), then you might not want to read what comes. If this is the case, then stop now and come back after you have.
You have been warned!
The parts of the series that demonstrate the three core elements are those that occur in the virtual reality game.
In the first level of the game, it is established that an understanding of the laws of physics must be used to make any predictions about stable eras. This is the same as the use of first principles.
In the second level, it is established that the system is a three body one - where the planet has three suns and is, as a result, on a chaotic path. This showcases systemic thinking, where influences outside of the core area of concern (in this example the planet) are considered.
In the last and third level of the game, the problem definition is changed from predicting the cycle of the planet (and thus the chaotic nature of the weather) to finding a way to save the population in the face of such chaos. This is the same as framing (or reframing). 
If you have read The Global Engineer, but still feel uncertain about the three core attributes of the expert engineer, then check out the series for examples. They will help you develop an inductive and intuitive understanding. You could also choose to read the book Three Body Problem. 

In engineering at least..

​It's quite the common story. A recent graduate engineer, now ready to start their professional engineering career, thinks that now that they have graduated they need to find a workplace with an experienced senior engineer. Why do they think this and is it true?

Why?
The graduate can almost see him, for the mentor is often assumed to be a man, in their mind. Gray hair and a lined forehead from years of contemplating and conquering engineering challenges; clothing a touch less formal than his peers, because he is more interested in the outcome than vanity; an experienced and trained engineering brain; a gruff disposition, because years of experience dealing with real-world problems has taught him a healthy contempt for textbook learning and the ideas from others of less practical experience, but they still have both avuncular friendliness and drive to take a young engineer under their wing; he is a source of wisdom on how to be an engineer, sharing all those mysterious engineering essentials never taught in any engineering degree; and, thanks to his ability, the sometimes grudging respect of his colleagues. The things they could learn from him. The confidence such knowhow would offer. The benefits to their career progression.

The Truth
But the truth is, if you do try to find a mentor, you will likely find one who has developed habits as opposed to insights. One who has likely forgotten what you know - being a recent graduate - because they have not had to use it for years. And one who is unlikely to have made any attempt to learn from other experts or literature - most engineers just don't do that. It is likely that they can give advice applicable to their industry, but even that might be more aligned with common practice as opposed to skills that will help you evolve into a true engineer - one who is ingenious.
In short, you will probably find someone who is not actually that much more qualified as an engineer than you are. 
Just one who has experience in their respective (and specific) field. Enough experience to be able to recall solutions - as opposed to synthesising something new - and to feel confident in that solution - such that you might be impressed with them at first encounter. 
So you might feel you have a mentor, but in reality, you will not progress as much as you could.
Only skill wise though. 
I have seen some engineers elevate to high professional levels (managers of departments even) simply because they were the only one available at the time. In fact, if your "mentor" retires or gains employment elsewhere, then you might find that you simply slide into their role. Especially if you have a good relationship so they speak highly of you and the employer likes the ideas of stability (and staying with people they know). This is more aligned with networking, which you should always engage in, and politicking, which can be viewed as a professional skill and something that is outside the focus of this blog. 
This blog is focused on engineering skill. And the truth is that you are unlikely to find a mentor who can genuinely help you with this post-graduation.
I am not saying you do not need to learn more after you graduate. Engineering practice is more than the practice of engineering. You will need to learn more about engineering and continue to do so throughout your career. 

A better alternative
So let’s talk about better ways of doing this. Ways that are better than having a mentor.
The first option is to read about research into engineering expertise. In my book on Global Engineering I mention a paper by Nigel Cross. The one summarising the findings from research into the ways world class engineers think. Papers like that are an excellent source of information on how to improve as an engineer. These papers are ideal because of the analysis by the researchers - it is more informed, disciplined and insightful than what you will likely gain from a mentor.
The next option is studying the history of engineering. Especially the exceptional engineers throughout history. Because of what they achieved, you know they are especially well skilled. Not to say others are not - it’s just that you can be sure those who made history are. This study can be via books or documentaries. Check out the library on the website for a collection of ideal references. 
There is also; the mastermind. This was put forward by Napoleon Hill in his book focused on what made for successful people: Think and Grow Rich. The basic principle is that a group of people is better than one. This gets back to the networking I was supportive of above. If you have a number of experienced engineers you can call upon as you confront challenges throughout your career, then you have something far superior to a single mentor. Note, these can also be online - and your network can be global.

Summary
Mentors are not what many expect, and, given the available knowledge on engineering practice and the networks available to access, you can take responsibility for your own development.

Postscript - The Other Side
While having a mentor is not as advantageous as many think, there is an advantage to being a mentor. It is called the protégé effect. When you teach something, you better understand it. You then apply it better. And you become a better engineer. You can benefit from this by being a mentor or by teaching. So be a part of other people’s masterminds when you can, share the knowledge you have when you can, and take any teaching opportunities you can.

Post-postscript - The Other Realms
Everything above is about professional engineering. There are other roles that are less well documented. Especially roles like management, CTO, CEO, VPs etc. The more esoteric roles will likely require mentorship for the sake of networking and insights unique to the company and culture on how leaders are selected.

Here is a fact for you. Many engineers do not know how to choose the best applicant for an engineering role. Here’s another fact for you. Those same engineers happen to think that they are pretty good at choosing the best applicant for an engineering role.

In this post, I will cover what is known about the best way to choose an applicant. Then I will combine this with what is known about engineering expertise. So you select the best engineering candidate next time. Then, I will go over some common mistakes – so you also know what not to do.
​
Not employing an engineer any time soon; more likely to be applying for an engineering role than advertising one? Not to worry; this post will also help explain the root cause of your frustration with employers not understanding all you can offer them.​

The first thing to understand is that intuition is not that great.

Most of the time.

Intuition is great when you need to repeat a task often and get near instant feedback. If you are a data scientist or data engineer, or even if you just know the basics, then think about neural-network training. That’s how our brains work too. We need a large amount of data.

​Also, for our intuition to work well, we need our whole brain working on the task, we want the emotional side, the creative side, and the analytical side all focused on the task. Only then, when your whole brain is trained on a large amount of data, can you rely on your intuition.

And this simply does not happen when employing an engineer.

First, it is not the case that any company needs to be employing one engineer after the other. There have been a few times in history when this has happened, but that’s simply not the norm.

Second, it is not possible to get the instant feedback needed. By the time the suitability of an engineer is evident to you, you probably can’t even recall what you noticed about them in the interview process. So you can’t update and refine your intuition.

Now that you can see why intuition is not suited to employing an engineer, let’s talk about the best way to select an employee.
​
This is explained convincingly by Daniel Kahneman in his now-well-known book “Thinking, Fast and Slow” (https://amzn.to/4bft5Qp). The steps to selecting the best employee are:

1. Think about the specific role you wish to fill.
2. Think of the traits needed to perform this role – no more than 6, independent of each other and measurable.
3. List the questions you will ask for each trait to determine their presence. These questions should be factual.
4. Make sure you have an idea of what makes for a weak answer and what makes for a strong answer for each question.
5. Find a way to answer each question.*
6. Collect the answers in order – do not skip around - for each applicant.
7. Add up the scores for the questions for each applicant.
8. Resolve to select the applicant with the highest score – no matter who you like the most.

*This is not mentioned by Kahneman, but it is common to use aptitude tests in engineering applications.  I have spoken with managers who have witnessed success when comparing the results of these tests with the performance of employees.​

I mentioned the attributes of expert engineers in my book (https://amzn.to/4beNiWH). The three main ones are:

1. Framing – the ability to turn a given problem into a different, but solvable, one that will give the desired outcome.
2. First-principles – the ability and tendency to use theory to inform and accelerate engineering decisions.
3. Systemic thinking – the ability to consider the broader context for both opportunities and risks while developing an engineering solution.

These could make up three separate traits or they could be one trait (engineering expertise). Regardless, you will need to develop a way to assess these.

You could do this by presenting a case and then asking the applicant how they would respond for each attribute.
​
For example: Consider the following problem [describe a challenge your company faces or once faced]:

1. What are other ways we could view this challenge to make it easier to solve?
2. What theories are applicable to this challenge and what insights can you gain from their application?
3. List how the various subsystems interact with each other, what surrounding systems might need to be considered, and how all this could be used to overcome the challenge.

Give thought to how long you would want to give applicants to answer these questions.
You can then also give thought to other traits you need for the specific role you are looking to fill. When you do this, you need to ensure you assess things genuinely worth assessing. So let’s now talk about mistakes made when selecting engineering employees.