The last article I wrote for this newsletter elicited a lot of responses. It is the most read and commented upon article in the series thus far. That tells me that many of us have a deep interest in the education and training of engineers. It also revealed something else – many seemed to assume that if you do well on the exam, then you understand the respective theory.
I am going to explore that assumption more in this article: Do good exam marks really mean good understanding?
It’s all on the surface.
When I was an academic and involved in education research, I was introduced to a phenomenon called surface learning. It is where students study to pass the exam as opposed to studying for understanding. We all probably have some experience doing this, where we drilled questions (maybe even used Schaum’s) or we remembered things. Or we know a fellow student who would get good marks, but never seemed to actually understand anything. That’s all surface learning.
You can get away with this when the exam is set such to allow for this.
And many exams are like that.
They don’t assess understanding, just your ability to drill problems to pick up on the procedure and repeat it at speed.
As an example of how pervasive this is, take the time to watch the video below. It features Eric Mazur, a physics lecturer, talking about his students and how shocked he was when he assessed conceptual (read “actual”) understanding after the first year of physics.

Some key points from the video:

• He never asked himself how he would teach.
• He still got high satisfaction ratings.
• He thought the students did well.
• He thought he was a great teacher.
• Exams went well – based on marks.
• He used typical textbook problems.
• When he found that many students at other universities did not learn well, he was convinced his Harvard students were learning.
• He was wrong – it is impressive that he chose to be so scientific about this.
• There was a difference between how students think in daily life and how they think for exams.
• The students used what he called “recipes” (read “surface learning”).
• Once he came up with a better teaching method, one where students actually learned, he does not say anything about how his satisfaction ratings went.

You can infer from this, that his students were engaged in surface learning until he corrected both his teaching style and assessment method.
Surface learning isn’t just about the student it is encouraged by most exams in engineering courses around the world.
As I mentioned in the previous article: many exam questions will list only the variables needed to find the answer. In such a scenario, students only need to recognise the pattern (or the recipe).
This is why grades don’t always (and often don’t) reflect understanding. The exam format can encourage procedural fluency at the cost not conceptual understanding.
But what to do about it now?
If you would like to improve your conceptual understanding of first principles, and you should, then one of the best sites you can go to is Arbor Scientific. They offer numerous teaching resources that you can sign up for, but they also have a great conceptual questions page - https://www.arborsci.com/pages/next-time-questions. Go check them out and get the resources once you are done. I liked the double boiler question and the bikes and bee question.  See which ones get you thinking or reveal your lack of understanding so you can improve it.
Before I finish though, I’d like to ask: what conceptual understanding tools do you know of? I am always keen for more and others here can benefit from them too.

Or When fear and shame override logicWelcome to the next “What would an Engineer Do?” article.
As a reminder, these articles take current issues that sit outside engineering and look at them through an engineering lens.
The goal is twofold:

1. To help you better understand the core attributes of engineering expertise by seeing how they apply elsewhere. Sometimes the different context makes things easier to understand.
2. To show how those same attributes can be applied outside of engineering. This allows you to leverage your engineering skills even more globally.

In this article I am going to apply good global engineering principles to shaken baby syndrome.

Why shaken baby syndrome?
Depending on the country you are in, you might have seen debate about the validity of evidence used in shaken baby syndrome convictions.
You might also be in a country where courts now require an independent witness. The physical evidence alone is no longer considered sufficient.
At the very least, you may remember a time when that physical evidence was accepted as proof.
It is in a state of flux so it is a timely topic, which makes for greater interest. It is also well outside of what many would assume is the domain of engineering.

Some background
You can read more about the science and controversy around shaken baby syndrome here, but the key points to note are:

• It isn’t ethically possible to run proper double-blind experiments in this context.
• It hasn’t been proved that no other mechanisms can produce the same symptoms: subdural haemorrhage, retinal haemorrhage, and encephalopathy.
• Other medical conditions are known to sometimes cause similar effects.
• Reviews that claimed to support the shaken baby hypothesis often relied on circular reasoning: the cases examined had already been classified as abuse victims based on the assumed evidence.

If you think like an engineer, and especially like a global engineer, you know that logic and first principles must guide your thinking. You also know that first principles are found through the application of the scientific method. And in this case, there are no first principles that justify concluding that “shaken baby syndrome” has occurred.
And that means something more concerning.  Because the evidence that was used as first principles cannot be treated as first principles, around the world people have been convicted of a crime they did not commit. And a terrible crime at that – so terrible they would never have committed it.
And yet still, when courts are confronted with reports challenging the status quo based on the above, some judges have responded by saying words to the effects of:

• The argument that the scientific evidence is not actually scientific is radical.
• It seeks to set aside decades of study.
• It stands against other respectable scientific opinion.

For any engineer, that kind of reasoning is known to be flawed. It reveals a misunderstanding of how science works. And when it comes to the scientific method, an engineer should think like any other scientist.
You likely recall Albert Einstein’s response to the book titled 100 Authors Against Einstein. He said “Why one hundred? If I were wrong, one would have been enough.” This shows that science works on facts and logic – not popularity – and a single piece of evidence that contradicts a theory disproves that theory.
Science is not based on consensus or longevity of an idea. It rests on evidence and logic. And in this instance, it seems the logic has been lost.

How are we in this situation? More use of engineering expertise principles
Did the judges not understand science? Or, was there something else going on, something that would be familiar to the global engineer?
Imagine if you were a judge who just had it suggested to them that a key piece of evidence that the legal profession relies has come under question. For context, the legal profession relied on this so much that some defendants said that their own lawyers did not believe them.  You would start thinking that maybe many innocent people have been wrongly convicted. That is not a pleasant thought, you would be attached to the original idea that the evidence is strong and your profession has done nothing wrong. You would be fixated on it – this would make it hard to accept contradictory evidence.
Ideally, this attachment would not result in a fixation that would override the proper application of first principles.
As an engineer, you know that once contradictory evidence emerges, previous conclusions must be revisited.
So, we would hope and expect, that an engineer would, when in such a situation, understand the weakness of the theory, and acknowledge that all prior decisions made (under the assumption the theory was a strong one) are not justified.
First principles should override fixation and attachment. But this is not what seemed to happen with these judges.

The takeaway for the global engineer
This case highlights a deeper professional lesson.
Are you willing to hold yourself to the same standard; detaching from your own preferred theories, your past assumptions, and maybe even your professional pride when the evidence shifts?
That can be the challenge of genuine first-principles thinking.
Think back to a time when you were attached to an idea that clouded your judgement. Or when you saw a colleague resist evidence that contradicted their preferred model. Anyone can do it. The key is to notice it and then to do your best to let go of it – no matter how serious the issue at hand.
 
References used
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Guthkelch
https://www.theage.com.au/national/australian-court-ruling-in-shaken-baby-case-was-ignorant-and-embarrassing-20251013-p5n25z.html
https://www.theage.com.au/interactive/2025/diagnosing-murder
https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/this-man-spent-six-years-in-jail-but-experts-say-his-case-has-question-marks-all-over-it-20251029-p5n6c9.html

The best of the best
Who is the greatest engineer in history? You might suggest one of the following:

• Imhotep – The world’s first recorded engineer and architect, who designed Egypt’s Step Pyramid of Djoser nearly 4,700 years ago.
• Leonardo da Vinci – Renaissance genius whose visionary sketches of machines, bridges, and flying devices anticipated modern engineering by centuries.
• Nikola Tesla – Pioneered alternating current and wireless power, reshaping how electricity flows through our modern world.
• Isambard Kingdom Brunel – Bold British engineer who transformed transport with his tunnels, railways, and pioneering steamships.
• Eli Whitney – Inventor of the cotton gin and a champion of interchangeable parts, laying the groundwork for mass production.
• Thomas Edison – Prolific inventor who brought practical electric lighting to the world and built entire systems around it.
• Archimedes – Ancient Greek engineer and mathematician who devised ingenious machines, from war engines to the screw pump, and laid down principles of mechanics still used today.
• Li Bing (3rd century BCE) – The Chinese engineer and administrator who designed the Dujiangyan Irrigation System, one of the world’s oldest large-scale water management projects, still in use today.

Who would you add to the list? Who do you think deserves the title of the greatest engineer? There is no shortage to choose from.
But the more important question is: how do I get to be that good?
First off, let’s note one thing: some of these engineers, while having great skill, experienced some serendipity. If Imhotep had been born some years earlier than he actually was, then there likely would have been no Egyptian empire to provide the resources needed to execute his vision. That means that there are possibly thousands of engineers who were just as great (when it comes to engineering skills and expertise), but they did not get to work on projects that would make them as well known.
I hope you do – for one thing it would mean that there are still great engineering projects for me to read about and talk about – but I also write these articles so I can help you become the best engineer you can.
So now let’s talk about the three attributes these engineers had – although, each probably had each attribute to varying degrees, and could have still benefited from further improvement.
Framing
Don’t always take the problem as given. Think about other ways you can bring about the desired outcome. In my book I talk about how a Formula 1 engineer took what all thought was an aerodynamics problem (where the gap under the car was too large for ground effects) and turned it into a suspension design problem (where the challenge became designing a suspension system that would lower under lighter aerodynamic loads, and return to the specified height for scrutineering).
The key to framing is twofold:

1. As I said, don’t take the problem as given – be willing to change it.
2. Take your time. Framing does not always happen in an instant so be ready to ponder on it for a while. Wrestle with the problem so you see if from all angles and then find the one that allows you to attack it.

Systemic thinking
We often get into trouble because of the things we don’t think of. When we implement our solution, we realise that it will cause another issue with a related system. So we want to prevent this.
But, there’s more. We can sometimes use those related systems to help solve our challenge. So we also want to look more broadly at any challenge we have to find opportunities, as well as potential issues.
To do this, think bigger. Don’t focus on only your own little challenge. Talk to others. Ask them what they have experienced. Go and see the location of the challenge (if you can). As you do all of these things, you will automatically spot potential issues and think of opportunities to explore further.
First principles
You have learned all that theory for a reason.
When you choose to use it – either through hand calculations, simulations, experimentation, guiding principles and so on – you can make specific changes to your proposed solution to:

1. Prevent failure.
2. Optimise the outcome.

Failures are clearly bad so you want to avoid those. And if you can provide and optimised solution, then you are indeed working like a great engineer.
So always think about the theory applicable to each challenge you face. And don’t be afraid to learn about more if you can or need to.
Over to you
You now know that the greats did – they framed, they thought systemically, and they used first principles – so you can work on doing that too.
If you want to learn more about each, then take a read of my book – I go over each (and other attributes of great engineers) in more detail.
Which attribute do think will be the hardest for you, and what will you do now to start working on it?
 

If you have read my book, then you will know that first principles are at the core of good engineering practice. They provide you with excellent constraints when making decisions. This in turn means you can focus your energies on other well less defined decisions.
 
An illustrative example that given by Gordon Murray when he was explaining his thinking process, involved the specification of a steering shaft in F1.
 
It was quite common for engineers to simply specify a nominal diameter – 25mm (around 1”) for example. That was because that was what everyone had done, it seemed to work, and it was thus easier to do that on all other cars.
 
However, that meant you could either be carrying excess weight. Or, it might even mean that you were close to failure and steering could be lost part way through a race. Neither option is ideal. So by taking a relatively small amount of time to calculate the diameter that would be able to transmit forces required, one could, in such an instance, know that they have an optimised and safe design.
 
That’s the power of being a mathematician as an engineer. You optimise.
 
But, there is also something more; something nearly magical. You gain great insights when you use first principles. Insights that can almost make you look like a magician.
 
Back to steering columns.
 
When Gordon Murray started to analyse the steering column, he realised that there were two types of loads: bending and torsion. Bending was mostly from the driver leaning on the steering wheel. Torsion was from the column’s main purpose: steering.
 
From this insight, which was provided by the use of theory and mathematics, it was possible to re-frame the problem. There was to be a structure designed to support radial loads, and the shaft was to be optimised for transmitting torque. This allowed for further optimisation of the overall design.
 
And it all started with the decision to use first principles and mathematics.
 
So by being a mathematician as an engineer, you can also be a bit of magician.
 
But it can also stop you from being a fool.
 
I also mentioned in my book when I was designing a dynamometer for model solar boats. They were small vehicles designed by students. So, it seemed to me, it should not be too much of a challenge to have a design where the water flowed under a stationary boat. That would allow for the boats to stay tethered in one place under a lamp (emulating the sun). Then, students could experiment with different configurations for different solar conditions. It all seemed like an easy way to offer great outcomes.
 
But then I decided to apply some first principles.
 
This was to choose the right pump. And, as it turned out, I needed a pump that could move 1 tonne of water every second!
 
I felt embarrassed.
 
But the senior technician, who was to organise the implementation of the dynamometer I designed, was grateful that I at least did the calculations – later, but before we actually started any construction. It seems many other engineers he had dealt with were neither mathematicians nor magicians.
 
And you now know what that leaves!
 
So, make the choice now to use first principles to guide your engineering decision making. Do some mathematics. And then make the most of those extra magical insights you will gain. 

You have probably seen this photo a number of times now. The three-stage evolution of the SpaceX rocket engine. A visual exemplar of engineering excellence.
It is indeed an impressive feat; many have wondered at how the plumbing was simplified so much. Some have even felt some pride; being part of the same professional family. It has also been motivation for other engineers; seeing what can be done when enough engineering effort and skill are applied to a task. And, finally, some simply thought the photos were not genuine; maybe the best evidence that the engineers had done well.
But the real value would come from asking how it was done.
By understanding the engineering thought that was behind such achievement, you can then better reflect upon your own skills and how to improve them.
And that’s what I will do here.
By using the above image, insights I have read about the engine’s evolution, and the knowledge I have shared with you in my book on engineering expertise, I will share with you some concrete examples of this expertise in practice.
First, two things we should note:

• Given how he has become such a controversial figure of late, it should be noted that this not about deifying (or demonising) Elon Musk. That fact is, even though he would have influenced the approach, the engineering was carried out by a team. And it is their work we are considering.
• What I write here, while being thoroughly informed by the most recent understanding of engineering expertise, is an inference. There will not be specifics – only higher-level insights into the engineering strategies used.

Now let’s talk about that plumbing. It is obviously the first thing most of us notice. And clearly the best way to get the part count down in such an engine – where most of the engineering effort is focused on ensuring the flow of fuel, oxidant and coolant.
The major reduction is from the first to the second.
It has been reported that the second version was a complete redesign. This is very much aligned with coevolution: where your understanding of the problem evolves with the implementation of the solution. There would have most likely been many lessons learned when designing and implementing the first design.
The lesson here for you is twofold:

1. If you are working on something very new, then expect that the first effort will be more about learning than about achieving. Even if that first effort is to go into service.
2. There will likely be little in the first design/effort that is worth keeping. This can be hard to accept. We can become attached to our designs. But work on being more appreciative of the knowledge gained.

The reduction in plumbing as the design evolved from the second to the third version is still significant. Ratio wise, it is probably the same as the respective reduction for the evolution from the first to the second.
The difference here though, is how it was achieved.
In this instance there was the goal put forward to reduce the number of protective engine shrouds. This is an example of framing – identifying the engineering challenge that will be the focus.
The number of shrouds was reduced by integrating many sensors and plumbing into the housing wall. This is an example of systemic thinking. By understanding how each part and subsystem interacts with others, opportunities can be found to harmonise all elements of the design. In this case, they could all use the same heat shield.
In addition, parts were combined into one (via welding as opposed to bolted joints). Having fewer parts means a more compact and lighter design. But, in this case, and often in others, it means more difficult servicing. The judgment would have been made that the increased cost in servicing was less than the money made carrying more cargo. These competing needs can both be quantified – so, it would be expected that, first principles would have been used to establish the most profitable compromise.

In summary:

• When doing something very new, the engineers leant into coevolution.
• Much of the reduction in complexity came from developing the right frame and then using systemic thinking.
• First principles were used to find the right compromise between revenue generation and servicing cost.

If you can’t recall the details of things like framing, systemic thing, and first principles, then take a listen here – it will take you 10 minutes.

If you have any questions or thoughts about how engineering expertise was applied in these engines or about developing your own abilities, so you too could do that, then leave a comment or send me a message.

Last time, I spoke about how we can sometimes limit our ability to reflect upon our engineering ability and how it might be affected by our background. This limitation is a result of, what I considered to be, saviourism. The text below is the post I mentioned, and promised I would share. Take a read and decide for yourself if it should be banned. 

THE GLOBAL ENGINEER - AND THE SKILLS THAT LET YOU CAN WORK ANYWHERE AND FOR ANYONE
This blog is a summary of research conducted into how your background - cultural, economic, national, and organizational - can affect the way you think and behave as an engineer. It will then talk about how you can use this knowledge to develop universal skills that will allow you to be the perfect engineer for any role anywhere in the world. Even if you do not plan on changing roles, this information will help you improve your engineering capabilities.
 
But first, to create context, what is currently known about engineering expertise needs to be covered.
 
The expert engineer
Much of the research into engineering expertise comes from research into design engineers. This is because they often have more definable tasks. But, they use the same skills as other engineers, and the findings are applicable to all. It’s just that design engineers make better “lab rats”.
 
So what has this research found?
 
There are three things the expert engineers do:

• Systemic thinking - they don’t stay focused solely on the problem right in front of them. And they don’t make the problem more and more specific. Instead, they consider all the peripheral issues - for both potential future problems and opportunities to solve the problem they are working on.
• Framing - they don’t always accept the problem as presented. They look at it from different perspectives - like looking at it through a different frame. They then find the one that provides the path to the best solution. In short, they take real world problems and then turn them into engineering problems.
• First principles - everything is optimized based on the best applicable scientific knowledge available. There is no guesswork or doing simply what was done before. They make sure that every specification in any solution is justified with some scientific principle.

 
How does background affect this expertise?
 
Examples are best to demonstrate this.
 
And let’s consider systemic thinking first. 
 
Research into how people from a western or eastern background look at paintings found that westerners looked more at the centre of a painting and those from an eastern background noted more details in the periphery. The reason for this was argued to be that in eastern cultures it is not simply what happens that is important, but it is also the context of when and where it happens. It is not simply what was said, but who said it, to whom, while whom else was present (and not present) and what was happening elsewhere. While in the west, it is more about the facts, which, we like to think, are absolute and independent of other things.
 
This would mean that people from eastern cultures would likely exhibit greater systemic thinking. They always need to be aware of other factors.
 
However, other research specifically into engineering found the opposite. 
 
This was because of another influence - organizational. 
 
Organizations in these countries would often divide work and then allocate one engineer to each subtask. Once an engineer finished their subtask, they would pass the work to another engineer to complete the next subtask. The reason for this was attributed to the developing understanding of concurrent engineering in these organizations. Dividing the labour seemed like a sensible way to improve efficiency so that each engineer could specialize and become more skilled - note that it has been found that such division does not actually offer increased efficiency.
 
When such engineers worked for other companies - ones that engaged in concurrent engineering - it was challenging for them at first, but the systemic thinking ability did develop. Thus, when given a chance to be expressed, the cultural advantage could be seen, but it was also the case that it could be stifled by managerial and organizational decisions.
 
This example shows not only how culture and organizational background affects engineering capabilities (and expertise) but also how they can counter each other.
 
Now Let’s consider framing.
 
Framing is where you take a challenge as presented and then turn it into the engineering challenge you will take on. Note that even if the challenge is initially presented as an engineering challenge, then you might still need to reframe it.
 
It’s a bit like working out what the real problem is.
 
A classic example of framing was reported on by Nigel Cross when he analyzed expert engineer Gordon Murray. You can find the paper here - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01607156. Gordon Murray was presented with what appeared to be an aerodynamic problem. But after he thought about it, he turned it into a suspension design problem. Aerodynamics was still the main issue, but it was the suspension that could bring about what was desired. This was a ground effect issue that required the vehicle to be lower to the ground while at speed.
 
Research into engineers working in mixed nationality teams found the following.
 
If you have been in an education system that encourages rote learning, then you would not have been encouraged to reject the problem put, and then take on one that suits you better. And you are less likely to frame an engineering challenge differently from how it is presented.
 
If you have been in an education system that encourages creativity or one that gives you a chance to emulate others who have been successful (ideally by framing), then you will be better able to do this instinctively.
 
This shows how the attitude toward your education, by those who run the education system, could affect your framing, and thus engineering, ability. This is often a result of government policy. So it is an example of how the nation you are from might affect your engineering skills.
 
Finally, let’s take a look at first principles.
 
First principles thinking is aligned with how you view knowledge and success. Some cultures attribute success to simply working hard and diligently. And also link success to a reward for good intentions. Other cultures view knowledge more as wisdom - something that resides in the minds of those with experience or who have gone before (the ancestors). If you can tap into this sacred knowledge, then you will succeed.
 
However, the success of your engineering efforts will be a result of your intended solution aligning with the laws of nature: first principles. 
 
Therefore, if you come from a culture that values objective scientific methods to attain knowledge, and the sharing and utilization of that knowledge, then you come from a culture that is more likely to use first principles. 
 
An example was found when researching engineering practice in mixed teams in China.
 
A Canadian electrical engineer was given a task by a Chinese manager. The Canadian engineer knew this was an impossible task based on the first principles. The Canadian engineer refused to take on the task. In response, the Chinese manager gave the task to a Chinese engineer. As expected, the Chinese engineer failed. Not due to a lack of skill - the first principles would simply not allow success. The Canadian engineer was then expecting the manager to come back to him and acknowledge that they were right. However, the manager said “At least they [the Chinese engineer] tried!” Even after the outcome, the Chinese manager thought that effort and diligence and respect of authority were more important than first principles. It was never established if the Chinese engineer knew failure was going to be the outcome and just did as their boss said.
 
This example shows that your culture could affect your willingness to trust the outcome of using first principles and the associated calculations. 
 
How does this affect engineer career success?
 
If your engineering skills are affected by your background (cultural, national, organizational and more), then you are unlikely to have the skills that make you an expert engineer.
And that means you need to work on developing those skills.
 
How can these core and universal engineering skills be developed?
 
The fact that you know about them is the first and major step. 
 
From here on, you need to now remain aware of:

1. Your tendency to think about peripheral issues and source related information.
2. Viewing your engineering tasks from different perspectives to see if there is a better way to solve them.
3. How often you use first principles to guide your decisions. From the general strategy to the specific attribute of a part (length, resistance, elasticity etc.).

 
If you keep focusing on these three things and your propensity for them, then you will automatically become better. You should also encourage these in your students if you are an engineering educator; or in your staff if you are an engineering manager. 
 
A final note..
There are other factors that can affect your engineering skill. The above will help with the majority, but always be open to learning about other factors that can influence the way you think.

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.

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.