« Last night's debate on happiness | Main | The roots of price stickiness, part II »
Why are so many top terrorists engineers?
Diego Gambetta and Steffan Hertog report:
We find that graduates from subjects such as science, engineering, and medicine are strongly overrepresented among Islamist movements in the Muslim world, though not among the extremist Islamic groups which have emerged in Western countries more recently. We also find that engineers alone are strongly over-represented among graduates in violent groups in both realms. This is all the more puzzling for engineers are virtually absent from left-wing violent extremists and only present rather than over-represented among right-wing extremists. We consider four hypotheses that could explain this pattern. Is the engineers’ prominence among violent Islamists an accident of history amplified through network links, or do their technical skills make them attractive recruits? Do engineers have a ‘mindset’ that makes them a particularly good match for Islamism, or is their vigorous radicalization explained by the social conditions they endured in Islamic countries? We argue that the interaction between the last two causes is the most plausible explanation of our findings...
Henry Farrell adds commentary. I take the bottom line to be that engineers are systematizers by nature and in Islamic countries in particular they face difficult social circumstances, relative to their human capital and ambition. I suspect also that elites with a clear inherited path to the top do not become engineers.
I am less convinced by the parallels drawn with politically conservative engineers in the United States, but the piece offers (p.51) this fascinating bit:
...engineers turn out to be by far the most religious group of all academics – 66.5 per cent, followed again by 61.7 in economics [emphasis added by TC], 49.9 in sciences, 48.8 per cent of social scientists, 46.3 of doctors and 44.1 per cent of lawyers, the most sceptical of the lot. Engineers and economists are also those who oppose religion least (3.7% and 3.0%), and, together with the humanities, those who more strongly embrace it...
Footnote 63 (p.58) is not satisfactory but nonetheless intriguing. This is probably the best piece on terrorism I have read.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on November 11, 2007 at 03:19 PM in Education | Permalink
Comments
the representation of individuals from the sciences generally is known in other right-wing religious groups. doctors and scientists were prominent in the rise of hindu nationalism, and have been prominent in evangelical student associations in the UK. i've speculated on the issues before.
Posted by: razib at Nov 11, 2007 3:53:33 PM
I offer a quick remark about economists and engineers being less opposed to religion, relative to professors in some other fields.
Economists and engineers also tend to stand out for being least social-democratic.
If James Buchanan (and others) are correct that government/the state/social democracy functions as a kind of God surrogate for social democrats, then it may be simply that the economists and engineers are relatively less opposed to plain old God because they are less enamored with the social-democratic God surrogate.
Posted by: Daniel Klein at Nov 11, 2007 4:02:47 PM
What role might western education play in the answer to this question? I don't have the statistics to back this up but I would venture to say that students from predominantly Islamic countries are more likely to study science, engeering, or more medicine than students from the United States or Western Europe.
Posted by: Sparty at Nov 11, 2007 4:13:34 PM
In the US at least, engineers are typically smart strivers from the lower and middle classes, with immigrants overrepresented among them. And immigrants have always been overrepresented among engineers, even in the 19th century.
As for terrorists, I wonder what a study of American terrorists would produce? The terrorists I've heard about in the US tend to be either "red-diaper" types who drifted into extreme religion as some sort of rebellion against their parents (Lindh), or clever losers such as Timothy McVay. This isn't counting people who flew here with the express purpose to commit terrorist acts such as the 9/11 people.
Posted by: Foobarista at Nov 11, 2007 4:14:07 PM
ASDs (autistic spectrum disorders) are more prevalent among engineers than the general population. That's why we're so difficult to work with. Perhaps ASD is what the study should be looking for. Are terrorists more likely to show signs of widespread abnormalities of social interactions and communication? If so maybe the inability to make strong human connections plays a part.
Posted by: washcycle at Nov 11, 2007 4:35:44 PM
This seems to explain a big part of it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_hypothesis
If you are drawn to learn engineering, you're bound to be more likely (on average) to believe in 'intelligent design' & it takes a particlar personality to subsume your own short-term gain for the 'grand design' of a God/Allah. It is plausible that this could be a factor - thanks for highlighting this Tyler! More research needed...
Posted by: nick at Nov 11, 2007 4:36:09 PM
My experience with engineers is that many of them tend towards relating to others more as objects/tools than as people. This probably allows them to feel more morally comfortable with blowing them up.
Posted by: Jacqueline at Nov 11, 2007 4:38:45 PM
This reads like a case of cultural attitudes and I second Sparty's comment. I wouldn't limit it to just Islamic countries, but Asian and Middle Eastern countries in general. Parents prefer sons to be engineers/doctors/scientists rather than the liberal arts curriculum that is prevalent in the United States. Also, in many countries that inherit a British type education system in particular, there is a tendency toward "streaming" or what some might call sorting with the tendency to be streamed into hard sciences being considered "good" or a signal of high ability. This may result in some selection bias that is giving this "intriguing" result.
Posted by: bccheah at Nov 11, 2007 7:53:44 PM
Razib,
Awesome post--thanks for the link!
rob from SM
Posted by: rob at Nov 11, 2007 8:45:42 PM
I concur with Sparty, Foobarista and bccheah. I am the child of immigrant parents who were born and raise in the middle east. Among my parents' peer group, "engineer" is synonymous with "doctor." In America we say "doctors and lawyers," but in the middle east they say "doctors and engineers."
My best guess for this is that perhaps these countries are in a phase of development where engineers are more vital than lawyers. They are (re-)building lots roads and buildings, but not political structures. When these countries establish a stronger rule of law, and don't need so much new infrastructure as vitally as they do today, perhaps lawyers will supplant engineers as they do in the west.
Posted by: Hovie at Nov 11, 2007 9:30:41 PM
I am civil engineer and lawyer.I was religious when i began engineering and became agnostic after studying physics well before begining law.But I have been a clasic liberal ( except for antilericalism) all the time.But here most lawyer are religius person , a big chunk of faculties at my school belong to the opus dei.
BTW, the evidence refered shows that CP SNOW was wrong
Posted by: jules at Nov 11, 2007 9:36:33 PM
Have the authors looked into what percent of degrees in Islamic countries are in engineering? Maybe that's like a default degree people get over there (like a "business" degree here in the US). No offense to the business majors!
Posted by: BlogReader at Nov 11, 2007 11:12:32 PM
I think BlogReader is right. I think there are lot more engineering jobs in developing countries than for other professions. So they possible represent the general population more closely than say scientists.
Posted by: pc at Nov 11, 2007 11:51:39 PM
EXCEPT, there's a better case that the bigger overrepresentation is of those wussy sciences and education types, like the sociologist of the survey.
After all, arts, sciences, theology, and education summed in their sample come to -->>79<<--, more than the 78 engineers.
Clearly, the authors are just trying to distract from the real arts and soft science culprit. After all, clearly you guys are just a bunch of extremists ;-) .
Let's see you spin THAT.
Or maybe the only pattern that can be drawn is overrepresentation of higher education.
Posted by: Jon Kay at Nov 12, 2007 12:54:10 AM
You might also want to look at
http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/what-makes-a-terrorist
Summary quote
"It’s not poverty and lack of education, according to economic research by Princeton’s ALAN KRUEGER. Look elsewhere."
Posted by: Eric at Nov 12, 2007 1:01:00 AM
The French have a term for it: "professional deformation." Each profession tends to attract a certain personality, and then accentuates it. (This is even true, hard as it is to believe, for economists!)
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Nov 12, 2007 1:19:46 AM
One obvious explanation is that engineers are actually trained to build physical objects (e.g., bombs), unlike, say, lawyers or economists. So, engineers are more valuable recruits for any organizations that wants to build bombs than are professionals who only work with letters and numbers.
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Nov 12, 2007 1:24:24 AM
Argh! How many times do I have to repeat this? All developing countries produce more graduates in the hard sciences - there's no choice of work otherwise. Males have been formed by evolution to seek status - status ensures reproductive success. Males are competitive and aggressive with one another; females tend to be cooperative with one another, as we're formed by evolution too. Our ancestors were polygynous, and that's why we are the way we are. When young males feel they are 'losers' ie, low status, they often go 'postal.' If you examine the lives of the various school shooters, apart from the fact that they're always male, you'll note that they never have girlfriends.
When the male/female ratio gets out of whack, violence ensues - East Germany and Russia today. When the male/female ratio gets seriously out of whack, in those parts of the world where polygyny is practiced, all hell breaks loose on a regular basis. The Middle East, and central and southern Africa.
Does anybody here think that Atta was able to get a date in Hamburg? Probably constant rejection, which explains his utter contempt for women. In Egypt, he would have been an highish status male; middle class, educated, trilingual, and off to Germany to be educated. Once arriving in Germany, however, he suddenly became a low-status male. And because socialism builds in high-youth unemployment, he couldn't even get a job and bring a wife over from Egypt.
Although it's a cliche to speak of the 'veneer' of civilization, it is correct -once the veneer comes off, we revert back to our primal selves. Thus, every war, from the depths of antiquity, through the Balkans in the '90s, and in Darfur and the Congo today, has featured mass rape.
The House of Saud has pulled off a magnificent trick - they've managed to send all the young males who can't find a wife in Saudi Arabia off to fight the jihad in other countries.
We'll be dealing with jihadis until the House of Saud bans polygyny - until that day comes, anything reforms the royal family promises should be taken with a grain of salt.
Oh, and continue to expect more jihadis coming from Europe.
Posted by: Jean at Nov 12, 2007 4:15:14 AM
How odd that they didn't try dividing their scientists into Physical Scientists and Biological Scientists.
Posted by: dearieme at Nov 12, 2007 5:05:10 AM
Engineers & doctors define the "elite" students in most Asian countries. These are also the people who have the greatest exposure to the world at large.
Trace the history of revolution/overthrow of capitalism. Asian fights for freedom were all led by those educated in Western systems, at home at abroad, which is where they face discrimination and where they experience denial of privileges. Gandhi's being thrown off a First Class compartment of a train in South Africa is one such story. And we all know what he went on to do.
This correlation, that of Engineers being over-represented in "terrorism" is perhaps specious. Reframe it, someone's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. And freedom fighers are leaders. And leaders tend to be better educated.
Posted by: Sushobhan Mukherjee at Nov 12, 2007 8:23:42 AM
Perhaps a tendency in both groups of "implementing a solution" instead of "talking about a solution"?
Posted by: Perete at Nov 12, 2007 8:57:39 AM
I wonder to what extent this also reflects the LACK of a rigorous traditional Islamic education - if you choose the Sci/Eng track early do you have time for the more humanistic disciplines of Islamic law, etc.?
My experience (I'm an art historian) of western medical doctors and engineers is that they often have kinda crackpot ideas about art - in part because they never had more than a distribution requirement course in it.
Posted by: Michael Tinkler at Nov 12, 2007 9:03:14 AM
Sailer: engineers don't build things, technicians do. When I was an engineer, I worked *exclusively* with words and numbers, and so did pretty much every other engineer I knew. The only ones who built stuff with their hands did so as hobbies on the weekends.
Have you ever heard of the terms "blue collar": and "white collar"?
Posted by: bartman at Nov 12, 2007 9:10:56 AM
Jacqueline: "My experience with engineers is that many of them tend towards relating to others more as objects/tools than as people."
Was your ex-husband or ex-boyfriend an engineer, Jacqueline?
I've known and worked with dozens of engineers over the past 30 years. I've even been one myself for a few years. Most engineers do not view people as objects.
Lawyers, on the other hand, seem to view people as essential elements of a balanced diet.
Posted by: John Dewey at Nov 12, 2007 9:34:49 AM
Many, if not a majority, of the founding members of Opus Dei were also engineers.
Posted by: Peter Forrester at Nov 12, 2007 9:42:43 AM
