What we don't know about what we think we know 2

An interesting article on page 7 of the latest STRUCTURE magazine. I've never heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect. That people tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities.

Structural engineers who are required to "practice only in the areas in which they are competent"...i.e. self-policed...may not be capable of knowning, or acknowledging when they are doing something truly beyond their competence.

Read the article.

http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/4c7703e7#/4c7703e7/6

 

[MiketheEngineer]

I am sure we have all pushed that envelope once or twice - same as any profession - doctors, cops, pilots, you name it.

Sometimes you have to go where you have never been in order to learn what you never knew...

 

[tolchijb]

If you look a little further into the Dunning-Kruger Effect, it also says that the opposite is true in far east asian countries. According to a few articles I read, far east asians tend to think their abilities are not as good as they may actually be.

In the end I do not necessarily agree with the article in STRUCTURE magazine. At the end of the day, unless there is a financial gain from the new SE lisensure (ie - insurance break or increased fees) there will not be a movement by the general population of structural engineers to adopt the new SE in low-seismic states.

I also think the article over simplifies the Dunning-Kruger Effect and the power of liability exposure and risk tolerance.

 

[steellion]

I believe that for engineers that regularly practice in states that do not have an S.E. designation, many more engineers will opt to take the Civil-Structural depth P.E. rather than the 16-hr Structural exam. This will essentially be moving backward from their intention to require a 16-hr test to practice structural engineering. While I don't believe that passing the Structural I makes one any more qualified than passing the Civil PE, and I know several very competent structural engineers that passed the civil test, clearly the author does not.

The author does make a valid point though that getting a degree or passing a test does not mean that you know everything there is to know about structural engineering. If you're practicing in California, then you'd better know your seismic detailing. If you're doing post-tensioning design for the first time, you'd better have someone with extensive PT experience looking over your shoulder.

 

[FSS]

That study clearly had something to do with our elected officials....

Articles like this bug me in that they always seem to push more exams and standards (great for academics) upon us and forget about the little thing called practical experience. Pretty soon we will all need phds and 5 different levels of exams, yet will not be able to tell the difference between a hammer and screwdriver (one has vodka in it).

 

[JAE]

steellion,

I'm not sure I agree with you. Most of the younger engineers I know are all planning to take the 16 hour. I think they see the writing on the wall and know that in the future, having the 8 hour civil exam will impede their ability to get licensed in other states.

Right now, there are a lot of firms that practice across state lines and having multiple licenses is a valuable thing. I think the EI's out there see this. And their professors, many of whom sit on state boards, or are on SEA boards, are telling them this as well.

 

[Adamian]

I only red the beginning paragraph and have had enough. Lets compare us with an athlete who is about to break a record. He/she has the "competence" to be the challenger, he/she also has the "confidence" that he/she can do it. But what is going to happen is a mystery yet. He/she may become the champion, or he/she may get injured or embarrassed the least. So, the choices are for him to lift and hold the barstool straight for 5 minutes at the local pub trying to impress representatives of the opposite sex, or to compete in the professional competition with equals.
All experienced professionals may face the same challenge where one can impress the local plancheck engineer (regardless of gender) by submitting neatly prepared conventional designs, or to take a never explored path hopping for exciting results.
For me SE also has a lifetime achievement significance.

 

[BAretired]

I suppose it is difficult for an individual to recognize that he does not know something which he is thoroughly convinced he knows. We should all be prepared to have our pet theories subjected to examination by our peers and to reconsider what we know.

None of us knows everything and it should not be an embarassment to find out that we were wrong. Being wrong is a learning experience and sinks in much more than being right.

BA

 

[ToadJones]

Didn't read the article, and I don't need to

Honestly. I have always been the type that fears I dont know enough.
But, I have seen many in the profession who are willing to design anything after reviewing a few code books.
Quite frankly, it scares the hell out of me.

 

[ishvaaag]

I will add the even more scaring view of those not "knowing enough" knowing more than those that officially do. We see it daily, right and wrong, on account of acumen and experience of some, and disruption of honest competence by others. In my view the issue is going to endure.

 

[csd72]

Yes I have worked with PE's and chartered engineers that frankly had very scary gaps in their knowledge and were completely unaware of their ignorance.

The PE exam tests your knowledge of the codes but not necesarily whether you are a good engineer!

I had a friend who was a very bright student with an almost photographic memory, he could do almost any of the classic analysis techniques straight off the top of his head years after learning them. He would have easily passed the PE exams but I often found him making some very flawed logical errors in his designs.

 

[DWHA]

Lets remember that passing the PE exam is the minimum requirement to practice engineering. It is just one requirement to obtain a license. Also, it is the responsibility of the mentor to sign off for the person taking the exam as a verification of experience. The sign off form states "Is there any reason that the person applying for the license should not be a licensed enginner." IMHO, if the person applying for the licensure falsly believes he knows more than he know, then the mentor should not sign off for him.

 

[Ron]

Great Post JAE!!

Confidence makes for good engineers. Overconfidence can be dangerous. How do you tell the difference? Almost impossible.

Confidence is what allows us to stretch and try new things. Innovation results from confidence. Overconfidence leads us to render insignificant those negatives that should be considered significant.

Confidence yields a balance between positive and negative. Sometimes its 60-40...sometimes its 40-60...but we know when to use each, inherently. Overconfidence skews the psyche to have few, if any, negatives. The niggling negatives are necessary.

Unfortunately this is an issue with no solution. It has always been...and always will be. The best we can do is recognize its symptoms...and hopefully prevent the catastrophes.

 

[ACtrafficengr]

This would be good to keep in mind when dealing with architects or clients that can't understand why you can't design their structure the way they want you to.

They may be fantastic architects, yet still not know enough about engineering to know what they don't know. Patience is required.

"...students of traffic are beginning to realize the false economy of mechanically controlled traffic, and hand work by trained officers will again prevail." - Wm. Phelps Eno, ca. 1928