General > General Technical Chat
A philosophical question - Is lateral thinking a valued trait in engineering?
T3sl4co1l:
--- Quote from: e100 on February 28, 2022, 04:29:38 pm ---Is lateral thinking a valued trait in engineering, or to put it another way can you get through an engineering degree and whole career by memorizing everything you have been taught but have no ability to think outside the box?
--- End quote ---
Yes, and yes.
Define the problem a bit more clearly:
Does an increased application of "lateral thinking" (definition pending?) result in higher wages/salaries in engineering fields?
I would think so. We can measure this quantitatively, at least in terms of outcome, and, given access to suitable data; filtering those data by the antecedent may be less straightforward, however.
But you also asked another question:
Can you complete an engineering degree, and whole career, using wrote information?
I also think so. I have met plenty of engineers, who are by all practical and technical definitions "engineers", and who aren't especially keen on outside-the-box thinking; everything they do is either as prescribed by textbooks, appnotes, etc., or passed down as given from on high.
Regarding math, I think so as well, but not to the vaunted level we would like to think -- 99% of engineering consists of busywork/housekeeping (project management, office politics as applicable, part and supplier selection, etc.), basic arithmetic (evaluating equations as given in appnotes / etc.), and informal combinatorics (finding the right set / permutation / sequence to more-or-less satisfy some largely-incomplete constraints/specifications). Even for the most erudite among the most common types of engineer, calculus and such makes up only a very small fraction of overall activity. Less common types can use more -- for example, sooner or later, someone needs to write the simulation tools used by others, which will involve field equations, differential equations, and vector calculus, so, implicitly, calculus and linear algebra as well. Though it's probably arguable that again, 95%+ is spent on combinatorics: writing code to implement those functions.
I can probably reduce that further and just say it's all combinatorics, as that's ultimately what squishy neural networks are good at; that, and detecting (pattern matching) environmental cues to, you know, learn all of language and society and how to actually do a job, as presented by other squishy-neural-networks.
Tim
Berni:
So Wikipedia defines it as:
--- Code: ---[b]Lateral thinkin[/b]g is a manner of solving problems using an indirect and creative approach via reasoning that is not immediately obvious. It involves ideas that may not be obtainable using only traditional step-by-step logic.
--- End code ---
I would certainly say it is a useful thing.
You don't always find a ready to go solution for whatever you are trying to make. You can sometimes build the required solution out of a combination of existing solutions, but if you stick too much to that you risk the "When you know how to use a hammer, every problem looks like a nail" issue where you force a solution into something it really was not meant for.
Yes a lot of engineering work is reading datasheets, drawing diagrams, documenting things. But you have to also come up with design ideas at some point. Sure it might just take a minute of pondering to come up with the idea, but how good that idea is might have a big impact on how the rest of the project goes.
The LT appnotes from Jim Williams are a great example of this. He uses chips and discrete components in all sorts of crazy ways to the point where you look at his schematic for a while and then go "Wait.. you can do that?". Often accomplishing some pretty tough tasks with deceivingly simple yet genius circuits.
SL4P:
YES to the holder, but most managers are unlikely to see or understand what it is.
Nominal Animal:
One can be productive in engineering by only knowing things by rote.
One can be an excellent engineer by applying logic and rational thinking effectively.
One can be a brilliant engineer by applying logic, and rational and lateral thinking.
One is an asshole (and not an "idea person"), if they only apply lateral thinking but not logic or more traditional methods of problem solving.
Thinking outside the box (as in re-evaluating the problem at hand, considering whether it even needs to be solved to perform the task at hand) is useful in all creative endeavours. It isn't always necessary, because not all work (including engineering or even research) is necessarily creative.
Being incapable of rational thought or logic, and being incapable of applying traditional problem solving methods, does mean one is unsuitable for creative work. Those who describe themselves as an "ideas person", who gets the brilliant idea, describes it in a single sentence "to a fleet of designer and engineer drones to implement it", are assholes. I have had dozens of "ideas persons" approach me with a "brilliant idea", suggesting that if I implement their idea, I get 50% of the profits. Or less. This is unrealistic, because a single idea is just the starting point in the solution phase space. Problem solving methods are like rolling a marble downhill, to find the lowest point reachable from a given starting point. Creative thinking is finding reasons for picking specific starting points that should lead to better (lower) end points. Lateral thinking and thinking outside the box is changing the entire phase space, by replacing dimensions with something else, with the change being such that it suggests promising starting points. The starting point is worth nothing, unless it is followed by the hard work finding the end result.
You have to learn the rules first, before you can break them beneficially without any harm. No shortcuts exist.
tautech:
Consider what might initiate lateral thinking, new technologies of course and/or pressure from managers and bean counters. ::)
Instrument/appliance PSU's are a fine example and SMPS has evolved in my lifetime to be the most common current source on the planet and allowed the miniaturization of all manner of things.
Reduced size, weight, increased efficiencies and lower copper content are all features that have reduced PSU cost keeping designers and bean counters happy.
We now consider the simple SMPS a basic design whereas just a few decades ago the even simpler linear PSU ruled the roost until someone thought laterally and used the new technologies available to them.
If you can't think outside the square you shouldn't be in this game.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version