Can it be Done?

[nexus3d]

The process of learning has always been defined
by the capacity of one's own mind. But I believe the
learning capacity of one's mind is defined by
one's ambitions.

To gain 40 years of experience in two years...can
it be done? If one could research and think of
every problem an engineer has faced in a 40 year
period in two years, does that make them as experienced
as the engineer with the 40 years of experience. Could
the two year study of the life of a "famous" engineer
and the problems he faced in 40 years make a person
as knowledgable?

If so, how can it be done?

 

[Qshake]

No. You cannot learn to reason and react to similar problems by condensing a 40 year period into to 2 years.

In fact, engineering school is an example of this. We learn the basics (applied engineering not math and science) in our last two years and spend a career learning how to use those tools to our advantage.

 

[nexus3d]

You don't specify a valid argument. My statement
includes:

Studying every experience an engineer has had
in a forty year period. A proper study would
include researching his resoning and reactions,
how they came about, and why he chose what he
chose.

How is this argument valid?

To me, you are displaying a perfect example of
my first paragraph "learning is based on the capacity
of the mind"

I don't believe a person is hindered by there mind,
just lack of ambition.

I appreciate your argument, but it was not very well
thought out, or supported by any means.

 

[Qshake]

Valid? You're asking for valid when in the realm of your post nothing is valid - or that engnieer you refer to has had a very limited career/experiences. There is no way to condense 40 years into 2.

For the most part, these experiences must be learned and are not genetically inherent. Therefore it is my statement that you simply cannot learn everything, down to the minute detail, of what must be a vast experience of 40 years.

In my opinion and experience, ambition plays a major role in the ability to learn from others. On the other side of the coin, being overzealous can be a hinderence and when you focus on one person's accomplishments/reasoning/decisions etc. you are leaving a lot of knowledge pass you by.

 

[nexus3d]

It seems as though you are wrong. My study has been
on a trainie who has done just this. He studies
under an internationally known retired engineer. The engineer believes with all his heart the boy knows everything he has learned in the past 40 years.

The opinion of the boy mirrors yours, he will never
be accepted. My opinion, he will superseed me and
any other engineer of this century.

Thank you.

 

[ishvaaag]

Bchapman, I will give as of now a reason why he can't get hold in 2 years or 40 years of knowledge of a dedicated engineer: he has not the time to read what he read, study what he studied and face what he faced. There being dissimilar capacities between men, 20 to 1 between able people are not.

Presently we witness what you say in many software users, even having gained an engineer degree: they expect the knowledge flow off the black box sofware without any regard whatsoever to engineering judgement and in what that is based. Simply, one has no time to learn the enormous array of design procedures available in 2 years. You may one man able to tackle say 10, 20, 100 important things to know in such time, but there are simply millions in the field, and on these one gains control upon dedication along time.

What does not negate that you may witness a brilliant pupil with bright future...remember, that as one learns more he learns more about the invalidity of the procedures and of the existence of alternative ones. All in 2 years, no way.

 

[nexus3d]

I understand your argument ishvaaag. I am meerly conducting
a study on this boy. I was saying the boy studied under then man for app. two years as an apprentace. The man, from what he has mentioned to me, believes this boy to be
a genious, solving math equations without a problem, while
struggling with his English. I believe the man. You
may be correct, but who are you to say something is not
possible. It is not possible for me, neither you, obviously, but why say it is not possible for him. You
are correct, the field is ever changing and ever growing,
and one method is often found to be better than another.
But, because our minds are not strong enough to imagine
such a feet, we should not say that the human, or the human
mind is not possible of such capabilities. After all,
you and I only use a small percentage of our brain anyways.

I am not an experienced engineer, software has always been
my better side. I do not compare to you, this boy,
or the man I speak of. I am just like building philosophy...my own. For one, I believe in the human mind,
and I believe man is capable of anything.

Once experiencing a life that I have, this belief that
a man is capable of anything becomes a necessary part of
my existance.

For me to believe this man and this boy, is to believe in the human mind.

I appreciate your insight, you are obviously educated a
great deal, and take pride in what you have accomplished.
I more than admire you for that, I respect you.

Me...I'll just keep watchen'.

 

[ishvaaag]

nexus3d (to you I was addressing -why I put Bchapman?-) thanks for the positive appraisal of what you may know of me.

Of course I saw such kind of philosophy in your question, simply this is not the forum to answer you in a philosophical way. People coming here is daily pressed to tackle and solve technical design issues on what precise arrangements on what is feasible or more or less correct exist, and on which even having knowledge enough, which is not always the case, it may well turn that midterm problems develop, for the field of knowledge is hardly completed. SO if you ask one of them if something can be done or not he or she is going to see the available resources and gauge if with them something sound enough can be done.

As you see, by the present understanding of those that have answered you, with the present means at hand, our technical evaluation on the feasibility of learning what a dedicated engineer can get to know in two years is that simply is not possible. Even in philosophical terms and given the commonnality of nature between men, if both are dedicated both would be learning -comensurated with the era- more or less about the same amount, and never the same things. This is a philosophical impossibility.

To say that potentially the mind can get to learn more or other means can be devised that prove great ability be learnt in short term is a possibility, yet by no means certainty. There's no free lunch.

Even if such brilliant pupil to which I wish the best of the futures gets to be a master, he won't know all. It happens in every field. Nor Einstein knew all that his colleagues. And so will happen with every man.

If you are speculating about some kind of New Man, er, nexus3d, this is not one of those of the present.

This in fact I have had to consider to the light of one of my hobbies, the paranormal field with a pent towards UFOs. There was a young and brilliant man that passed 2 years precisely reading what he decided to, then wrote a book and pretended give the answer in more of being a know-it.all. Frankkly, I by then had 30 years in my back on such subjects, and even appreciating the occasional finding his effort could apport to me, I simply saw he was much more a believer in that he knew than a knower.

Don't mislead then this brilliant guy and let it him that if he is a human, he has an entire life to learn.

 

[jproj]

nexus3d:

One question to you:

How well do you know this man (including his 40 years of experience)?

A man can work for 40 years and learn nothing. I would agree that condensing 40 years of nothing to 2 years of material would be quite easy. I would also assert that one could work on one thing (lets say storage tank design) for 40 years... which could also be easily condensed to 2 years of study.

I would have to disagree though if the man held several degrees and worked in several different fields of study (lets say consulting) for 40 years on different projects.

"Learning" and passing a test over the material is one thing. Retention is another. Retention comes from experience (in depth understanding) and repitition.

jproj

 

[Ron]

One major fallacy of this premise is the use of a single person from which to gain this "experience". The experiences of an individual are often anecdotal. It is the accumulation of experience from many different sources that either validates or refutes the anecdotal evidence. This takes time, and two years is not enough. As Qshake said, we learn the basics, then spend years practicing and watching the result of our decisions (some good, some bad)so that we learn from those.

I would agree that the mind has much greater capacity than that to which we task it. The mind has the power to envision results, but the results, in actuality, are often different than envisioned. Is this the fault of the mind or the inability of the mind to control outcomes which are outside its realm of influence? One mind cannot control another just by simply willing it to be. Physical action is required.

Until the chasm between theory and actuality is closed, your premise would not be valid.

 

[MortenDK]

No engineer makes a total documentation of his life and thoughts through 40 years,
So probably the question is much too utopic? Morten K. Thillemann

 

[DaveVikingPE]

Only 40 years? Heck, if he started practice as an engineer at age 22, he's only 62 years old, not even ready for retirement. My first job was working for an Old Man who'd designed, literally, thousands of structures in the USA, Mexico, Hungaria, etc. I think the only material of construction he's not familiar with is recycled plastics lumber... When I started working for him (1993), he was 82 years old (I think he's still alive)! And he started out as a working engineer at age 21!

Here's what I learned from him:

1. Shut up, I am the boss.
2. They teach "you people" NOTHING in school these days.
3. Computers can't be sued, but I can, so get off the computer and do it by hand.
4. Whenever possible, the guy driving the concrete truck will try to add water to his delivery; if you must reject a load because of a bad slump, do it.
5. The building must be built according to the plan.

Did he transfer his knowledge to me? I worked for him for nine months. I believe that he transferred a lot to me, yes (I left for a better paying job, not because I didn't like him or something like that) - no one else could stand the guy, but I needed the abuse. But what was transferred was a qualitative knowledge. From his 30+ years in precast/prestressed concrete I learned about it and how structures are built from it, but I did not absorb his years and years of solid design experience.

And that, I think is the bottom line: sure, you can condense all the years and get an excellent qualitative education, but that is not the same as quantitative design experience.

 

[nexus3d]

Just for fun, to continue this discussion:

This entire forum is based on ability to:

1. Read One's problem (Not something we've directly experienced)
2. Evaluate the problem
3. Find a solution

In some ways this process is acceptable. Why not in
others?

The experience a person gains allows a person to
evaluate someone elses problem by imagining the
situation, trying to decide what decision will
take you to what outcome, and then choosing your
path.

If someone could spend the time, every day of his life,
doing the above mentioned with the guidance of someone
who has already done this, why is it so difficult. We
do it every day in this forum:

Place a problem
Announce our method of trying to solve it
Announce why we failed
And find out the solution and why from someone who
has already experienced something "like" it.

It may not be possible to gain 40 years of experience
in the period of two years, but does this method
Using one's experience to learn yourself to decrease
the amount of it takes for you to learn the same information) decrease the time of learning by a large
amount...if so, by how much?

 

[Ron]

Nexus3d...ignoring the smart-ass comments and moving on to the salient issue, yes, taking advantage of one's experience in the learning process certainly "flattens" the learning curve. It is an invaluable tool that each of us has used at one time or another. It is the basis of an apprenticeship program.

Unfortunately, the retention of such is less than if gained through one's own experience or research, unless the topics are mundane and repetitive. That's what makes a electrical engineer different than an electrician. In this forum we can answer questions ad infinitem; however, the person asking the question usually just wants the answer, not the process. If the person truly understands the process behind the answer, the next question doesn't have to be asked. It is called reasoning and logic.

The real answer lies somewhere between your extreme and the theory extreme. I suspect it is not close to either.

 

[PECPESC]

I am a civil engineer, surveyor & certified specialist in sediment & erosion and member of Mensa. I have been working as an engineer since 1957 (45 years) and have been registered in multple states for over 32 years. During this time I have trained many young engineers enabling them to easily pass their PE exams. There is no way that they can absorb or me expound on all the situations I have faced and problems I have solved in my career in 4,000 hours (2 years). I have often wished that there was a way to implant the knowledge I have gained into a younger persons brain. All I can do is try to teach them as much as I can while I have them around. Try to learn how to recognize the "big picture" then work out the details as you encounter them.