Intuition as it's seen in engineering

[Ghost of the dead horse]

Sometimes in an engineering task, a colleague or a superior comments someone's approach to their work. They say he's working intuitively.

They mean he's not being methodical, systematic. The intuitive person might not use the most tried-and-true methods taught in school.

The intuitive person's line of thinking might not seem clear to others. It's more personal, more subjective than those of others. There's a rationale that isn't easily explained.

The intuitive professional seems like an artist in the midst of engineers. Engineering disciplines aim to get rid of art, and embrace the sciences and the trade.

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

So at the risk of stating the obvious, engineers see intuition as a hindrance to effective collaboration - a point which might be shared by the general population against the MBTI intuitives, and for a good reason. Why would someone be intuitive about something if they could be factual.

 

[Qlip]

I'd say in most team engineering environments it's not just important to get the task done, it's important to be able to explain what you did, understand its overreaching effects, and have solutions that are as self-explanatory as possible in their implementation to people who will be working with the project in the future. Unexplained cryptic intuition is best for problem solving, not for something that is left as a legacy.

 

[Betty Blue]

I'd say in most team engineering environments it's not just important to get the task done, it's important to be able to explain what you did, understand its overreaching effects, and have solutions that are as self-explanatory as possible in their implementation to people who will be working with the project in the future. Unexplained cryptic intuition is best for problem solving, not for something that is left as a legacy.

Hey Q, what do you think of modern art?

 

[Qlip]

Hey Q, what do you think of modern art?

I enjoy a lot of it, but it's a very wide subject matter, so that's not much of an answer. Why do you ask?

 

[Betty Blue]

I enjoy a lot of it, but it's a very wide subject matter, so that's not much of an answer. Why do you ask?

Just seem to be a bit of an enfp loner in my general views of modern art. Can't stand most of it... get along a lot better with conceptual and installation... but piles of bricks and dirty bedrooms just do nothing for my artistic bent

Sorry OP... I think i highlighted your issues with my silly tangent.

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

I would have guessed, because modern art isn't clear and factual, but it's extremely intuitive to the point that misunderstanding is more likely than understanding.

 

[ZNP-TBA]

Sometimes in an engineering task, a colleague or a superior comments someone's approach to their work. They say he's working intuitively.

They mean he's not being methodical, systematic. The intuitive person might not use the most tried-and-true methods taught in school.

The intuitive person's line of thinking might not seem clear to others. It's more personal, more subjective than those of others. There's a rationale that isn't easily explained.

The intuitive professional seems like an artist in the midst of engineers. Engineering disciplines aim to get rid of art, and embrace the sciences and the trade.

As an intuitive guy (though I can border the 'S' line closely) working in the engineering field is a form of 'creativity' to me. Yes, there ia methodological system to follow when dealing various troubleshooting scenarios but that doesn't mean that creative improvising isn't required, in fact, often times it is. In the real world, i.e. when things come back from the field as defects, it doesn't function as structured as a classroom.

For example, one time when I was in the Navy, and our ship was deployed and one of my radar systems ( the main surface navigation radar) shit the bed because water and debris got into the waveguide. Unfortunately we didn't have the supplies necessary to replace it so I had to improvise. I thought about a suitable replacement and came up with cutting some of my CDs as a patch for the waveguide since the polycarbonate surface of the CD fulfilled the same/similar function as the dielectric rod of the waveguide, at least temporarily.

It was unconventional and not something you learn in class according to a rigid system but the creativity of it saved the day.

Also, modern art or art in general doesn't interest me too much though I can appreciate a fun walk through a gallery like in D.C.

 

[Qlip]

As an intuitive guy (though I can border the 'S' line closely) working in the engineering field is a form of 'creativity' to me. Yes, there ia methodological system to follow when dealing various troubleshooting scenarios but that doesn't mean that creative improvising isn't required, in fact, often times it is. In the real world, i.e. when things come back from the field as defects, it doesn't function as structured as a classroom.

For example, one time when I was in the Navy, and our ship was deployed one of my radar systems ( the main surface navigation radar) shit the bed because water and debris got into the waveguide. Unfortunately we didn't have the supplies necessary to replace it so I had to improvise. I thought about a suitable replacement and came up with cutting some of my CDs as a patch for the waveguide since the polycarbonate surface of the CD fulfilled the same/similar function as the dielectric rod of the waveguide, at least temporarily.

It was unconventional and not something you learn in class according to a rigid system but the creativity of it saved the day.

Also, modern art or art in general doesn't interest me too much though I can appreciate a fun walk through a gallery like in D.C.

This is the sort of thing I'm talking about. Raw intuition has its place, definitely for on the spot problem solving, and getting you through a situation. But you don't want a ship, or product that's all patches and jerry rigging.

Art is in an entirely different class when it comes to this sort of thing. The domain is entirely different than creating something for utility.

 

[ZNP-TBA]

This is the sort of thing I'm talking about. Raw intuition has its place, definitely for on the spot problem solving, and getting you through a situation. But you don't want a ship, or product that's all patches and jerry rigging.

Art is in an entirely different class when it comes to this sort of thing. The domain is entirely different than creating something for utility.

No you don't want a premier product to be jerry rigged and full of patches but that's how the real world works. Not everything is going to be perfect out the gate. It's up to people in my position to discover the root cause of defects and provide necessary feedback and then suggest creative solutions to improve the product.

I see art as fulfilling some kind of utility still.

 

[Qlip]

No you don't want a premier product to be jerry rigged and full of patches but that's how the real world works. Not everything is going to be perfect out the gate. It's up to people in my position to discover the root cause of defects and provide necessary feedback and then suggest creative solutions to improve the product.

I see art as fulfilling some kind of utility still.

No, it can't be perfect, and perfection is too nebulous a term. Within time and resources available a design and solution should be elegant, maintainable, documented and understandable as possible. It's what should be aimed for. Art should not be held up to these requirements, but engineering should.

 

[ZNP-TBA]

No, it can't be perfect, and perfection is too nebulous a term. Within time and resources available a design and solution should be elegant, maintainable, documented and understandable as possible. It's what should be aimed for. Art should not be held up to these requirements, but engineering should.

Agreed, engineering is mainly concerned with 3Fs (fit, form, and function) and in my area of expertise I need to be cognizant of that plus various issues like minimum electrical clearance. The goal is to be at target (which is "perfection" in engineering speak as you know) with these things as concerns the utility of the patient/customer we are trying to service.

Various devices we make fall into different classes as dictated by the FDA and other regulatory agencies which modify the standards. Most of our stuff is expected to be in line with the most rigorous standards since it's a life saving product.

Is there a universal standard art should be held up to though?

 

[Qlip]

Agreed, engineering is mainly concerned with 3Fs (fit, form, and function) and in my area of expertise I need to be cognizant of that plus various issues like minimum electrical clearance. The goal is to be at target (which is "perfection" in engineering speak as you know) with these things as concerns the utility of the patient/customer we are trying to service.

Various devices we make fall into different classes as dictated by the FDA and other regulatory agencies which modify the standards. Most of our stuff is expected to be in line with the most rigorous standards since it's a life saving product.

Is there a universal standard art should be held up to though?

Exactly, engineering is built to spec. I'm a Software Engineer, and this morning I reported as being a Software Developer which I think it's a more appropriate title, I think the approach required in the software industry is a lot more relaxed as far as rigor is concerned with things outside of the subset of people who do algorithms, R&D and extremely mission critical things.

I truly believe you can engineer art, but what art is really a deep philosophical question, and it's even different but just as deep as what you're asking... what is good art?

 

[1487610420]

Exactly, engineering is built to spec. I'm a Software Engineer, and this morning I reported as being a Software Developer which I think it's a more appropriate title, I think the approach required in the software industry is a lot more relaxed as far as rigor is concerned with things outside of the subset of people who do algorithms, R&D and extremely mission critical things.

I truly believe you can engineer art, but what art is really a deep philosophical question, and it's even different but just as deep as what you're asking... what is good art?

The creative handyman in me thinks this is so cool
[video]http://coolmaterial.com/video/wonder-object/[/video]

 

[Dyslexxie]

I'm sensory leaning and I work in a pretty techy field. A lot of my coworkers are much more intuitive than me and are also probably much better at what they do than I am because they're able to think their way through a problem in a more abstract manner, while I can easily freeze up and feel at a loss trying to sort through my experiences to find a solution that has worked in the past.

 

[meowington]

Interesting OP.

Anyway, I think intuition has proven it's value. I think Einstein first came up with the idea of relativity through intuition and then worked out the mathematics. And that goes for lots of discoveries in the field of physics (gravity, ...).
I think there's a time & place for rationale and for intuiting, and I think that there are enough rational reasons for intuiting. Isn't this a bit the same as doubting the use of brainstorm sessions ?

Anyway, I used to frustrate my previous boss (an ST type) because I came up with clever computer related diagnosis' without having anything to back it up rationally. He had a hard time accepting I was often right about something purely through intuition.

 

[Swivelinglight]

I don't know if computer science is classified as engineering (some may say yes others no), but intuitive thinking is often looked kindly upon. In fact CS itself is sometimes described as the art of problem solving.

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

In some jobs there has been little to no acceptance of intuition in engineering. Intuition might be useful in brainstorming or problem solving, but then the question has become if the problem-solving or brainstorming approach is valid for a particular situation. From critics of the intuitive approach, they ask, why did you make a problem of it? Why did you make this an exercise in creativity when you could have avoided it?

 

[meowington]

From critics of the intuitive approach, they ask, why did you make a problem of it? Why did you make this an exercise in creativity when you could have avoided it?

Yeah I understand. But. What if that creativity enables you to solve the initial problem quicker than you would if you only used scientifically methodology ? Doesn't that count as pro intuiting argument ? Not saying this would work everytime, but you can always fall back to classic rationale if intuiting brings no results (or vice versa).
Makes me wonder what type is good at both (intuiting and classic thinking). Probably all NT types.

 

[Jeremy8419]

Sometimes in an engineering task, a colleague or a superior comments someone's approach to their work. They say he's working intuitively.

They mean he's not being methodical, systematic. The intuitive person might not use the most tried-and-true methods taught in school.

The intuitive person's line of thinking might not seem clear to others. It's more personal, more subjective than those of others. There's a rationale that isn't easily explained.

The intuitive professional seems like an artist in the midst of engineers. Engineering disciplines aim to get rid of art, and embrace the sciences and the trade.

Usually, they are going down to lower levels and operating their instead of on the surface level; e.g., approaching a task from a base physics approach rather than from the immediate issue.

Make any sense?