Intellectual Traits Essential to Engineering Reasoning
No engineer can claim perfect objectivity; their work is unavoidably influenced
by strengths weaknesses in their education, experiences, altitudes, beliefs, and
self-interest. Highly skilled engineers recognize the importance of cultivating
intellectual dispositions. These attributes are essential to excellence of
thought. The engineering enterprise poses distinct questions for the engineer in
pursuit of each virtue.
Intellectual humility is knowledge of ignorance, sensitive to what you know and
what you do not know.
What do I really know about the technological issue I am facing?
To what extent do my prejudices, attitudes, or experiences bias my judgment?
Does my experience really qualify me to handle this issue?
Am I quick to admit when I am dealing with a domain beyond my expertise?
Am I open to considering novel approaches to this problem, and willing to
learn and study where warranted?
Intellectual courage is the disposition to question beliefs about which you feel
strongly.
To what extent have I analyzed the beliefs I hold which may impede my ability
to think critically?
To what extent have I demonstrated a willingness to yield my positions when
sufficient evidence is presented against them?
To what extent am I willing to stand my ground against the majority (even
though people ridicule me)?
Intellectual empathy is awareness of the need to actively entertain views that
differ from your own, especially those with which you strongly disagree.
To what extent do I listen and seek to understand others' reasoning?
To what extent do I accurately represent viewpoints with which I disagree?
To what extent do I accurately represent opponents' views? Would they agree?
To what extent do I recognize and appreciate insights in the technical views
of others and recognize prejudices in my own?
Intellectual integrity consists in holding yourself to the same intellectual
standards you expect others to honor (no double standards).
To what extent do I expect of myself what I expect of others?
To what extent are there contradictions or inconsistencies in the way I deal
with technical issues?
To what extent do I strive to recognize and eliminate self-deception or
self-interest when reasoning through engineering issues?
Intellectual perseverance is the disposition to work your way through
intellectual complexities despite frustrations inherent in the task.
Am I willing to work my way through complexities in an engineering issue or do
I tend to give up when challenged? .
Can I think of a difficult engineering problem in which I have demonstrated
patience and tenacity?
Do I have strategies for dealing with complex engineering issues?
Confidence in reason is based on the belief that one's own higher interests and
those of humankind at large are best served by giving the freest play to reason.
Am I willing to change my position when the evidence leads to a more
reasonable position?
Do I adhere to technical principles and evidence when persuading others of my
position or do I distort matters to support my position?
Do I encourage others to come to their own technical conclusions or do I try
to coerce agreement?
Intellectual autonomy is thinking for oneself while adhering to standards of
rationality. It means thinking through issues using one's own thinking rather
than uncritically accepting the viewpoints, opinions, and judgments of others.
To what extent do I uncritically accept what I am told (by my supervisors,
peers, government, and soon)?
To what extent do I uncritically accept historical solutions to problems?
Do I think through technical issues on my own or do I merely accept the
conclusions or judgments of others?
Having thought through an issue from a rational perspective, am I willing to
stand alone against irrational criticism?
Fairmindedness is being conscious of the need to treat all viewpoints alike,
without reference to one's own feelings or vested interests, or the feelings or
vested interests of one's friends, company, community or nation. It implies
adherence to intellectual standards without reference to one's own advantage or
the advantage of one's group.
To what extent do I uncritically accept historical solutions to problems?
To what extent do self-interests or biases tend to cloud my judgment?
I low do I tend to treat relevant viewpoints? Do I tend to favor some over
others? And if so,why?
To what extent do I appropriately weigh the strengths and weaknesses of all
significant relevant perspectives when reasoning through an issue?
From Engineering Reasoning, Paul, Niewoehner, Elder