> Anecdotally I've seen people coming from a heavy STEM background struggle with nuance and ambiguity more than people coming from a well-rounded or heavy humanities background.

It could also be that folks that dislike nuance and ambiguity self-select to go into STEM fields because the problems and answers/solutions are more clear-cut and 'concrete'.

Also:

* https://xkcd.com/451/

> Solving a problem with one or more right answers is very different from critical thinking.

Its also very different from what STEM majors do. In life there are no specific right answers just ones that aren't wrong. STEM majors dont live in a world of binary right/wrong problems any more than anyone else does.

STE majors might not, but I am not sure I can go along with you on the M. ;)

Math is all about making proofs. There are infinite ways to prove something, and proofs are often asscesed partially based on aesethetic value.

If anything, i think it applies to the m more than the ste.

> Anecdotally I've seen people coming from a heavy STEM background struggle with nuance and ambiguity more than people coming from a well-rounded or heavy humanities background.

Engineers deal with ambiguity all the time. They do so in a logical and systematic fashion using statistics and probability. Noise is an unfortunate fact of life.

We're talking about undergraduate degree programs, which for STEM consist substantially of problem sets and tests that have right answers. Sometimes they're just answers, sometimes they're more like Pareto frontiers, sometimes they're programs, but in any case the bulk of the work is verifiable, which is a luxury. It's a bit (but only a bit) like the difference between solving a chess puzzle and actually playing chess. We teach people with puzzles, then send them out into the world to play real games.

They do teach statistics in undergrad engineering though.

They do, substantially in the form of problem sets and tests that have right answers. This is the point; it's not a counterpoint.

But the statistics they learn is exactly what they use to deal with noise.

People are ambiguous in ways that defy statistical reasoning.

> I doubt the programs themselves are worse for critical thinking (good luck controlling for confounds), but it's not obvious they're better, either.

A lot of engineers I’ve encountered who have little social science or humanities experience seem to not be well equipped to critically evaluate works in those disciplines when they do encounter them. Which makes them vulnerable to crackpot ideology, or just latching onto the first thing they encounter that makes sense to them.

It works both ways though. Many a non-technical CEO has been talked into buying some worthless overpriced piece of enterprise software over the objections of their IT department.

But your experience isn't universal or even common. Most of the engineers I've encountered can and do critically evaluate work in social science and the humanities, correctly conclude it's built on a very flimsy foundation of scientism, has little value and that this is why social science/humanities academics are so vulnerable to crackpot ideologies. Something much more strongly associated with universities than engineering organizations. Critical theory did not come from Boeing.

What makes your experience more common or universal than theirs? Sounds like two sets of anecdata.

> Most of the engineers I've encountered can and do critically evaluate work in social science and the humanities, correctly conclude it's built on a very flimsy foundation of scientism, has little value

"correctly conclude", huh. You're basically saying "people with similar backgrounds as mine reject the theories proposed by people with very different backgrounds, and I think they're quite right".

I probably have a similar background as you do compared with a professor in social science, so I might agree with your conclusion (that a lot of theories in humanities are flimsy), but I see nothing to indicate (except your assertion) that those engineers you know actually evaluate work in social sciences and the humanities critically. Maybe they reject them because they sound so alien and unfamiliar?

If you mean they're "critical" because they don't easily buy into those crackpot theories, perhaps consider the crackpot theories in the software engineering profession -- Agile methodology? Test driven development? Best way to interview programmers? Benefits of using $fad_framework? These are actually questions that could in theory be answered using social science methodologies. Yet what we do as a profession is simply cargo cult what the big names do. IMHO a tech CEO being sold on useless "Agile" methodologies is basically the equivalent of "a non-technical CEO has been talked into buying some worthless overpriced piece of enterprise software".

I really like the example of the non-technical CEO being talked into buying something, for the opposite reason projectazorian intended. There are in many cases hidden business dynamics driving those decisions that make them globally optimal, even though they look like local extrema to Joe Engineer. Mutual backstratching with investors and board members, for example, gets a lot of shit done. The real system is much wider than the one most engineers see, and in that wider system the non-technical CEO may just be the best engineer of all.

Or they may be an idiot. That happens, too.

I think a lot of engineers would agree with you that the evidence for TDD, Agile and $fad_framework is weak. Those sorts of debates are a HN staple, so I wouldn't want to criticize the whole field of software engineering because of the popularity of these concepts. Indeed Agile is often criticized for being insisted on by non-developers.

Social sciences aren't criticized for being crackpot anyway, that's a strawman, it's more for the standard reasons that they produce a lot of claims but the evidential basis is weak. If social science was riven with internal debate in which these weak claims were constantly and publicly attacked, then we could compare it to the software world, but in practice we don't see that and dubious claims that come from one or two people often persist for decades before anyone decides to take a second look.