James Smith: 
 

I can only guess that those who fight against it may be fearful that their own careers and achievements were not won fairly.  Although this might be true to a certain extent, there is more than enough space for anyone within engineering given the historical, current and projected future shortages.

Hi James,

I suspect the issue is often rather more complicated to address than this. All of us have a particular world view, for all sorts of reasons, and any threat to that results in huge cognitive dissonance. The human brain has a huge capacity to invent reasons to justify its world view in the face of all the evidence - when you've spent years accepting a particular position our subconscious will do its utmost to defend the patterns it's set up. There's a Nobel peace prize waiting for anyone who can find the solution to that one! Given that it relates to many issues far more existentially important than this one.

(Taking a far more trivial example: I hereby humbly apologise to all those who I bored rigid in pubs in the 80s and 90s with my rants about why analogue audio was better (and always would be) than digital. Which of course was because a: I was an analogue audio designer and b: all my close colleagues were analogue audio designers. So part defensive, and part groupthink, but all subconscious. P.S. Neither are better, they're just different. And from my later career, I hereby accept that axle counters are at least as valid a mechanism for train detection as track circuits - even if I do have to grit my teeth while writing that! ? P.S. Neither are better, they're just different!)

As is well known, the best solution we do know of is for individuals to get themselves out of the echo chamber. Which neatly brings us back to the point - the greater the diversity of views, attitudes and approaches in, say, the world of engineering, the greater the range of views, attitudes and approaches that are acceptable. It's a snowball effect. And of course it works the other way - most of us will have come across companies where everyone thinks the same way as the CEO, anyone who doesn't is either not recruited in first place or doesn't stay long (through their choice or the company's). If you do think the same way as the CEO then everything's fine and it's everyone else that's wrong. And when the company goes bust it's the rest of the world that's at fault for not appreciating how wonderful the company was (the first company I ever worked for was a superb example of this).

Then once out of the echo chamber a healthy evidence based debate can start…and I'm sure our approaches to and opinions on this issue will change as new evidence comes to light. Which again, takes us back to the original question.

I do often feel in situations like this that there are two engineering professions operating in parallel universes (and I've switched between both through some portal during my career): the one based around innovation, creativity and constant progression, including an awareness that the underlying science itself is constantly developing, and the one based around the principle “I was told this as a student / apprentice so that will be true until the end of time”.  Which is comforting to the individual, but not terribly helpful to anyone else. Oh dear, I've gone grumpy old engineer again…

“How many psychotherapists does it take to change a light bulb?” “Just one but the light bulb really has to want to change!” Ahhh…it's good to have an excuse to get that one out again ?

Cheers,

Andy

James Smith: 
 

I can only guess that those who fight against it may be fearful that their own careers and achievements were not won fairly.  Although this might be true to a certain extent, there is more than enough space for anyone within engineering given the historical, current and projected future shortages.

Hi James,

I suspect the issue is often rather more complicated to address than this. All of us have a particular world view, for all sorts of reasons, and any threat to that results in huge cognitive dissonance. The human brain has a huge capacity to invent reasons to justify its world view in the face of all the evidence - when you've spent years accepting a particular position our subconscious will do its utmost to defend the patterns it's set up. There's a Nobel peace prize waiting for anyone who can find the solution to that one! Given that it relates to many issues far more existentially important than this one.

(Taking a far more trivial example: I hereby humbly apologise to all those who I bored rigid in pubs in the 80s and 90s with my rants about why analogue audio was better (and always would be) than digital. Which of course was because a: I was an analogue audio designer and b: all my close colleagues were analogue audio designers. So part defensive, and part groupthink, but all subconscious. P.S. Neither are better, they're just different. And from my later career, I hereby accept that axle counters are at least as valid a mechanism for train detection as track circuits - even if I do have to grit my teeth while writing that! ? P.S. Neither are better, they're just different!)

As is well known, the best solution we do know of is for individuals to get themselves out of the echo chamber. Which neatly brings us back to the point - the greater the diversity of views, attitudes and approaches in, say, the world of engineering, the greater the range of views, attitudes and approaches that are acceptable. It's a snowball effect. And of course it works the other way - most of us will have come across companies where everyone thinks the same way as the CEO, anyone who doesn't is either not recruited in first place or doesn't stay long (through their choice or the company's). If you do think the same way as the CEO then everything's fine and it's everyone else that's wrong. And when the company goes bust it's the rest of the world that's at fault for not appreciating how wonderful the company was (the first company I ever worked for was a superb example of this).

Then once out of the echo chamber a healthy evidence based debate can start…and I'm sure our approaches to and opinions on this issue will change as new evidence comes to light. Which again, takes us back to the original question.

I do often feel in situations like this that there are two engineering professions operating in parallel universes (and I've switched between both through some portal during my career): the one based around innovation, creativity and constant progression, including an awareness that the underlying science itself is constantly developing, and the one based around the principle “I was told this as a student / apprentice so that will be true until the end of time”.  Which is comforting to the individual, but not terribly helpful to anyone else. Oh dear, I've gone grumpy old engineer again…

“How many psychotherapists does it take to change a light bulb?” “Just one but the light bulb really has to want to change!” Ahhh…it's good to have an excuse to get that one out again ?

Cheers,

Andy