Andy:

This is absolutely fascinating. In fact, I have long believed that my
extraordinary serendipity runs true in my choice of publishers, in that
the people who share publishers with me are generally and particularly
the most interesting, cleverest and entertaining writers.

However, I think that from your analysis it is only a short step to
performing on-line Hare evaluations of the "engineers" we meet here,
and finding them full forty-score undesirables. We do seems to have an
inordinately large proportions of intuitive obstructives. That would be
a lot of work wasted to discover what we know already; I prefer simply
to remember the TIME article which explained why the ugliest people in
society become engineers, which was brought to my attention by a
protege of mine, herself an engineer (and definitely not ugly either
spiritually or physically, a shining exception--except that she isn't:
most of the automobile, electronic and civil engineers I know are
cultured, civilized and entertaining people -- the audio conferences
probably attract all the wrongoes in the world and therefore give a
skewed view).

I like the loose phrasing of "cultured people" and "technical people"
because I am an includer, not an excluder like the obstructionists
here, and I like the carefully loose phrasing (1) among other good
reasons because it admits of a huge overlap. (Ask yourself why Roderick
Stewart is going to such extraordinary lengths to "prove" his lie that
I devised these categories to be mutually exclusive, and why all the
wrong people immediately piled in to cheer him to the rafters. The
answer is sickening.)

It seems to me significant that the engineers who actually work in
recording and music production are very carefully staying out of this
thread because they don't want to be tarred with the arid, cramped,
fearful brush of the "engineers" whose idea of logic is to snip
relevant counter-argument and then to repeat their own argument, plus
abuse of course.

Thanks for the entertainment!

Andre Jute

(1) Several of my mentors and keenest boosters were Freudians. I regret
now in the overenthusiastic ignorance of youth savaging their hero for
"being of strictly literary interest". Science is not defined only by a
concurrent ability to take hard measurements; it is amazing how often
science proceeds by insight only later formalized by repeatable test
protocols, and it is notable how even in my lifetime psychology and
economics, more philosophies than sciences when I was a student, have
developed a hard mathematical carapace. My joke, intended to reassure
my partners and clients that the millions we spent on market research
were justified, that "Economists and psychologist are merely jumped-up
statisticians with more imagination and class," is probably well on the
way to becoming true.

Andy Evans wrote:
I'll not hold my breath waiting for Andy to explain in clear terms what
he means. Because he doesn't believe in accepted measurements, but some
form of 'magic'

That is complete and utter nonsense and not based on anything I've
said, though it seems a commonplace on this ng to find myself
misrepresented. To take up the point about the "engineers personality"
which seems to have come in for some discussion here, we already know
that engineers as a general grouping (n=986) are T 50% on the MBTI and
as high as 80% in the case of operations and systems analysis, which
differs from artists as 44% (see other posting in this thread) - this
would be one differentiating factor that Andre may have alluded to. It
would also be interesting to look at factor A on the Catell 16PF which
we know to be skewed downwards in scientists, engineers and indeed
academics. My data on both popular and classical musicians on Factor A
puts them around the norm for UK adults at sten score 5. (Evans A
"Secrets of Musical Confidence, HarperCollins), while engineers would
be significantly lower particularly if they were also academics.
Entertainers can be significantly A+. People with low scores on A+ are
said by Cattell (1957) to be ?obstructive, cantankerous, inflexible,
rigid, cool, indifferent, secretive, anxious, suspicious, hostile,
egotistical and dry ? apparently not such a pleasant person to have as
a friend?. I leave it to the imagination to figure if this applies to
members of this newsgroup. High scorers on this he described as
?warmhearted, adaptable, attentive to people, frank, emotional,
expressive, trustful, impulsive, generous and co-operative? (evidently
an easier person to have as a friend). So it seems that Andre's
attempted distinction between engineering and what he referred to as
"culture" (rather loose word) would certainly hold for parameters such
as expressiveness and emotionality (again see other posts on this
thread). I believe that this factor, probably more than any other,
gives a much needed reference for what has been a rather woolly debate
in strictly psychometric personality terms. Catell goes on to say many
things, of which the following is relevant, since it relates to the
frustration and animosity displayed by those low in factor A towards
those scoring higher on A (arts in general, and particularly
entertainers, but also health workers which relates to my own case).
"Social workers have to adapt cheerfully and flexibly to a lot of
compromises with human failings and to accept a ceaseless impact of
never entirely soluble emotional problems that might drive the exact
logician or the careful electrician mad?.
The clinical data shows more psychopathology for lower A scores, such
as social avoidance, critical detachment, flatness of affect or a
history of unsatisfactory relationships, and it would be recommended
that clinicians encountering scores of 1 or 2 should check for
?burnt-child? reactions associated with unrewarding and austere
relationships in early years. Changes in factor A can be attributed to
situational factors such as occupation, so some caution in interpreting
the above is recommended, though there is also evidence of relative
long term stability and also hereditary tendencies.