A more standard definition in my tenure in academia is that scientists solve problems because they want to know the answer. Engineers solve problems because they want the problem to be solved.

In any case, the difference is just, heh, academic.

I’m very much the latter.

Agreed.

I might also argue that those people are all still engineers.

Engineer just means “problem solver”. Everyone gets paid for solving problems.

The real question in my head is how far does this go?

Sometimes the problem is that these burgers need flipping. Protein disk translocation engineers? I’m cool with that.

I always thought about going to be a farmer. Then I watched some videos from farmers and realized they are also engineers.

A large faction of engineers, especially software-type engineers, have these types of hobbies.

I’m sitting here right beside the heirloom quality (compared to most furniture) coffee table I made in my garage with my nearly complete wood shop.

I make stuff in two ways in my day job. I design something and someone else makes it, or it’s just some idea as software.

Engineers are a type. We’re just wired differently from most other people.

Oh yeah, and you know the justification for indigenous peoples being granted their land back because their ancestors used to live there, and they were removed?

That’s the exact same situation for Israel. The Jews used to live in Israel until they were kicked out.

Let that complicate your morality.

Also please remember that Europe purchased nearly the entirety of products produced by slaves in the Americas.

If there were no European market there would have been little incentive for American slavery.

I guess the slave free northern states also purchased their fair share, but nothing compared to Europe.

I’m hoping this is a joke or troll.

There are people that smart, but they should be smart enough to know that IQ is not for the super intelligent or the super un-intelligent.

Sigh.

I know you’re right…

Thanks for pointing out my ignorance.

This is my favorite answer so far.

Why did you get your IQ tested?

You get a bit of bonus smartness points for that one.

Dude’s nouning an adjective. That’s a smart person move, and dude does it twice.

Imposter syndrome was a real problem for me.

One of the things that really helped with that for me was when a colleague I really respected confided in me about their imposter syndrome.

Edit up top: you lose points for the wrong they’re. I didn’t even notice it until now, so I also lose points.

Fair enough answer, but plenty of ways. That’s the point of the question. To hear people’s answers. Their creativity.

If you win the Nobel prize, you should reasonably be able to say you are really smart.

If you voted for Trump, you should reasonably be able to say that you are really dumb.

Additionally, lots of people know Dunning-Kruger about how dumb people overestimate themselves, but that has another part: smart people underestimate themselves.

That’s what they want you to think.

If they come out and say “I am very smart” everyone will make fun of them.

Eh. That probably means you’re right.

The cat? Nibbler!

I learned how to make some very fancy furniture off of YouTube. There’s lots of excellent videos in techniques.

I remember woodworking for mere mortals being good when I was a beginner. (I’m still a beginner compared to plenty, but I can definitely design and build a bench on my own).

It gets like that.

Once you’re a few years in, you can’t really leave without starting over or being ABD, which is a really bad resume blemish (because it usually happens to people who aren’t smart enough for a PhD and get kicked out with the consolation prize).

Although, there is a really prominent researcher in my field who only has a master’s. It’s like, you know if I were on your committee, you could just staple a few of your papers together, and I would sign off on a PhD.

By the time you’ve done enough learning to get a PhD, writing a dissertation is not much trouble.

It’s been over ten years, do you want me to talk about mine? For a solid week? Unprepared?

No problem. I already have.

In the US, PhDs, in STEM at least, are fully funded. Either by research or teaching assistanship. This is the same as in Europe and students are frequently exchanged.

You’ll only be paying for yourself if you’re in art history or something stupid like that (even then you could get a TA) or you haven’t demonstrated that you’re smart enough to get a PhD.

Edit: it’s so weird how this completely factual statement has been so controversial. I actually went through this process.

Umm.

PhDs in things like engineering are typically fully funded. They paid me while I did mine. It’s not much, but it’s enough to live on.

Art history, sure, you pay for yourself.

In STEM, you would get an RA or at least a TA.