Hacker News Reader

Comment by pphysch | Hacker News Reader

I wonder if it was (ironically) coined by nonengineers who don't understand how engineers (or other high-stakes professionals at Pareto boundaries) solve problems: by decomposing problems and identifying optional solutions and weighing the solutions based on various risks, trade-offs and tolerances.

I have seen this personally, where merely identifying a possible solution (harmless, reversible) is misinterpreted as selecting and implementing that solution (may be irreversible).

View on HN

> by decomposing problems and identifying optional solutions and weighing the solutions based on various risks, trade-offs and tolerances.

This is how all people solve problems. Now everyone are not great at all parts, but this really is what anyone does.

Surely the title ”engineer” means something else?

Ideally, but this is not at all taught or incentivized in (American) schools. We're taught to "hack it" which means getting to a solution without much regard for how we got there.

Even if engineers were uniquely capable in this regard it still wouldn't equip them to solve problems in fields where they lack domain expertise.

Again: identifying possible solutions to a problem is not "solving" the problem.

You're right. I'll rephrase: Even if engineers were uniquely capable in this regard it still wouldn't equip them to identify solutions, let alone solve problems, in fields where they lack domain expertise.

I have a bachelor's and masters in engineering and was never taught to "hack it" without regard for how a solution is reached.

Documenting and analyzing your solution is an extremely important part of managing risk, which is what engineers actually do.

Not everyone is going to school for engineering.

I believe it was coined by non-engineers to describe the obnoxious behavior of engineers who arrogantly disrespect other's expertise and assume they're better than non-engineers (when the reality is the engineer doesn't know what he's talking about). Often that involves stupid analogies to things like computer systems.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com