Engineers'minds are 'super-computers'

How do I think like an engineer? The single biggest way to think like an engineer is to be able to view and interpret the world in a cause-effect manner. Every other trait of an engineering mindset, such as problem-solving, application-oriented, etc. is dependent on being able to view the world through a cause and effect perspective with minimal bias. Personal bias can be minimized by only allowing yourself to make data-driven decisions.

The reason why viewing the world in terms of cause and effect is so helpful for engineering is because that mechanism naturally lends itself to finding truth by experimentation, observation, and testing the hypothesis against the measurable world. Thinking in a cause-effect manner lets the engineer make future predictions based on previously learned principles, and the engineer’s prediction (design) will then be tested at the end to unambiguously prove whether they were right or wrong. Designing well-controlled experiments is an art form in itself, and it helps one to prove hypotheses with minimal ‘noise’.

Someone thinking in a dispassionate cause-effect manner understands that arguing against facts and data is futile, and it is more sensible to instead refine your theory and understanding based on the data in front of you, so that you can make better predictions in the future based on a refined model. Engineering school is all about being trained to think like an engineer. In reality, the mind of an Engineer is a complex cobweb, so it is really difficult to reflect what goes inside the mind of us in a generalized outlook. But I will try to portray what goes inside mine.

As an Engineer we consider some stuffs to be fundamental which people from other genres may or may not agree. We consider logic to be our grammar and we never deviate from it,although I have been interested in metaphysics and occult studies for quite a longtime. Physics and Mathematics are our pillars on whose shoulders we rest. Sometimes Chemistry foundation is equally important for the Chemical and Metallurgy Engineers.

People like to think that we are more like a technician and solve any problem of the gadgets. Though it is true, and we are indeed fascinated to troubleshoot the hardware complications,but we are more interested in the fabrication of the hardware and the logic that guides its development. We get bored and disgusted at ourselves when we are not being able to solve a problem, whether it is personal or technical. That’s how our brains are wired. The difference between the physicists and the engineers lie in the fact that the physicists provide a theory about how to deal with a complication, while we apply that theory,experiment and finally solve the issue.

Problems give us the biggest orgasms, without them we are totally dull. Give us a problem, and we will fix it. Give us a project, we will nail it. We always like to keep us updated with the latest tech,keep us modern and prevent us from being orthodox,so that we are always mentally equipped to face any challenge at any time. And the quirkiest thing about us,is our response time. Our analysis takes the least time and it helps us to respond in the fastest way.And did I mention, Engineers are going to create a supercomputer that will map our human brain very soon?

Now, I will add this: from technicians & mechanics point-of-view, engineers often lack practical know-how and “fabrication” ability. I agree to a degree: as I see we have two populations of engineers: Those who had an aptitude for math and were steered into engineering by their guidance councilors. This is the “book smart” types. They may not know how to weld, but they will tell you if that beam will support your applied load. Those who loved to tinker, take things apart, builds thing. Built computers or wrote code as a teenage. Knew how to solder before going to college. I was an electronic tech while going to school. We are the types that, when designing a car, will try to keep you from pulling off your tire to replace an oil filter. We sometimes even succeed.

Business people think we don’t have a clue about business. Actually that can be true. I also had a few things to say about that in another answer: Why do engineers think business people are dumb? Engineers also don’t have the best reputation for dressing themselves. But my wife picks out my clothing, and I just arrange it in the closet so it goes through a rotation. We are at times considered to be “arrogant.” Not sure where that comes from. Bear in mind I am no engineer or scientist. These are my views only. Things are not hard and fast and “either or” - but still I am trying to answer. Engineers are focused on practical applications and specific situation.

Scientists just want to understand how the world works. They deal with principles that govern the behaviour of natural world. The same working principles are used by engineers to build machines. Science is the soul/spirit of engineering. They would not care much about real life implementations. They ask questions. Whereas - engineers focus on the behaviour of something - say a gas - and worry about how to make steam engines. They would worry about the efficiencies of various cycles - what fluids should be used to improve the performance of engines.

This is how a physicist sees a steam engine : Sadi Carnot was an engineer who is sometimes honoured as “the father of Thermodynamics. Carnot wanted to answer two questions about the operation of heat engines: "Is the work available from a heat source potentially unbounded?" and "Can heat engines in principle be improved by replacing the steam with some other working fluid or gas?" He attempted to answer these in a memoir, published as a popular work in 1824 when he was only 28 years old. It was entitled Relaxions sur la Puissance Mortice du Feu("Reflections on the Motive Power of Fire").

The book was plainly intended to cover a rather wide range of topics about heat engines in a rather popular fashion; equations were kept to a minimum and called for little more than simple algebra and arithmetic, except occasionally in the footnotes, where he indulged in a few arguments involving some calculus. He discussed the relative merits of air and steam as working fluids, the merits of various aspects of steam engine design, and even included some ideas of his own regarding possible improvements of the practical nature. They don't ask - what are gases made of ? How can I understand the macroscopic properties of gases from my knowledge about molecules? This things are done by Scientists like Boltzmann - work out pages after pages doing calculations to build the foundations of statistical mechanics.

It’s like looking at the sun and one worries about how to harness the power of the sun in an efficient way versus asking what is the origin of that energy. By the way - you can look at this link - To understand what kids with engineering mindsets think : Why 13-year-old's solar power 'breakthrough' won't work. Don’t think my motive is ulterior in mentioning the link. I have met people that I think have engineer’s mind, they never would have even thought of engineering. When things break, they try to figure out why and look for fixes on their own. They think couple of step ahead, look at logistics of daily life as a puzzle to be solved.

I think engineer’s mind is a problem solving mindset, some get training and become practicing engineers, others just approach situations with logic and get on with it. If you don't get frustrated when you can't figure something out right away, if you think you will find a way if you put your mind to it, you are on the right track already. Thinking like an engineer basically means to find a more convenient and economically feasible alternative for a problem.Please be clear engineers don't invent anything new, they just research the current problems and try to come up with a better option, which is only possible by technological innovations.

As an example let's consider the transmission of electricity. According to analysis and calculations(harmonic analysis to be precise) it has been concluded six phase transmission is more suited when compared three phase systems that are actually used (12 phase even better).However if we consider the cost of extra conductors required to make such systems it becomes economically nonviable meaning the cost outweigh the advantages. Similarly you can take many such examples where there is a tussle between quality and cost which decide weather a system should be implemented or not. Cheers!