Thought experiment: replace "engineers" with "followers of Islam". The math still checks out, but suddenly I'm not so comfortable discussing the sociological/psychological reasons behind the correlation.
Except it doesn't. IRA, LRA, KKK, Mormon extremist groups, Cubans (for a while if you got hijacked you could safely assume you were being forcibly redirected to Havana), Nationalist movements too numerous to count etc. No one who has seriously studied violent non-state actors believes that Muslims are more prone to violent extremism than any other group.
Islamist groups have certainly gotten the "best" press for a while and have the most prominent groups whose stated goals essentially boil down to "world domination" (but their plans for world domination have only slightly less chance of success than mine, so relax on that front). That, however tells us exactly nothing about the propensity of Muslims to become extremists.
Extremism is no more common among muslims than it is among any other large group unless you limit your definition of extremists to Islamic extremists.
Pardon my bayseanity, but the article discusses P(Engineer|Terrorist), not P(Terrorist|Engineer). I'm saying that a similar claim holds for P(Muslim|Terrorist), while your point is regarding P(Terrorist|Muslim).
But this is way off topic and my argument has nothing to do with Islam. I'm just pointing out how easy it is for us to play couch sociologists when weighing the merits and problems of "Engineering" culture, vs how difficult it is to hold a similar discussion about the issues of "standard" religions or cultures.
Neither direction is significant. Given reasonable definitions of terrorist (and the ones I think are best) terrorists are not significantly more likely to be muslim. In order to make that the case you need to extend "terrorist" status to a lot of groups that are really governments or insurgencies and not give "terrorist" status to a lot of Christian and political anti-government groups.
P(Muslim | Terrorist the US currently gives a shit about) is interesting, especially given the propensity to regard certain terrorist groups as criminal elements for political reasons.
Also interesting, other countries sometimes negotiate disliked groups onto our lists to legitimize their crackdowns (ironically the crackdowns can push the group to actually become terrorists. Hi Turkey!) and make their international fundraising efforts effectively illegal.
It is important to refute you because the implicit points when you talk about "how difficult it is to hold a similar discussion about the issues of "standard" religions or cultures". It isn't difficult for scholarship to have that discussion. It has been had. It disagrees with what you suggest to be true.
In any large organization you'll see instances of departments clashing over projects, managers going over each others' heads and bureaucratic turf wars. I'm sure these disputes are at least as common inside the NSA, or between different branches of US intelligence, as they are between the US and its allies.
The difference here is that in an international setting, our national ego comes into play and suddenly it's all about the Israeli lobby or some deep geopolitical interests, when it could just as easily be caused by a SW bug or an overzealous midlevel manager.
Maybe there is a place for a broader discussion about supplying arms to Israel, but I don't think this case is a good example. Looks more like Israel and the US collaborated very closely, on mostly equal terms, to achieve some impressive technological breakthroughs.
If anything, this is a testament to how technology and international cooperation can provide a safe and efficient alternative to unilateral use of of force.
If the worst side-effect of all of our covert and overt operations was leaking some Zero Days, the world would be a much safer place.
So far Israel hasn't featured high on Isis' agenda, and there have been no significant isis attacks on Israeli targets. This is despite the fact that they almost share a border.
Neither are Palestinians' rights a top priority for isis. What's left of the the residents of Yarmouk refugee camp will testify to that.
In short, Isis is not about israel vs palestine, it's about a deeper social/religious clash of ideas.
So maybe before you try to ratonalize isis, you actually read up on their core beliefs. You might find out that this is one murderous organization whose actions you can't blame on israel.
Exactly right. The plight of the Palestinians is a significant recruiting tool but that's all it is. ISIS has no plans to liberate them.
The purpose of ISIS is exactly what they say it is. To establish their own state governed by hard-right Islamic ideals. And the reason they have so much support is largely driven from the perceived persecution of Muslims worldwide e.g. xenophobia in Western countries, drone strikes on innocent civilians etc.
Is ISIS really linked to Pakistan? I understand there are strong suspicions of connections between Turkey and ISIS (at least pre-bombings). But I hadn't heard of a link with Pakistan until now. I thought Pakistani intelligence was happy coddling the "right" talibans and their home-grown anti-Indian terrorist groups. Do you have any evidence this connection?
And a ton of other news articles on the same subject. Pakistan is super dangerous because it is not all that hard to imagine a number of groups within Pakistan switching allegiance. It is also super dangerous because it is a nuclear power and has a long history of factions inside it trying to pull Pakistan into a much more radical direction.
Don't know much about the rest of the US, but debates in my school are usually won by whoever feels hurt and marginalized the most.
The latest Israel-Divestment debate revolved around what would be least offensive to Jews/Israelis/Palestinians/Muslims, with Black and Latino students' feelings thrown in for good measure. It was all about who self-victimizes the hardest, objective reality in the middle east never came into play.
Surprisingly enough, most Muslim/Jewish/Black/Latino students went on peacefully with their life, totally oblivious to how badly their feelings were hurt during that debate. Thank god the school paper was there to tell them.
Hmm. It doesn't seem to me that Israeli-Palestinian debates are one of the ones centered around whose feelings are hurt the most. It's an emotional discussion, to be sure, but one based around hard facts on the ground: anti-Semitism/people calling for a second Holocaust, terrorism, mass expulsion, expropriation, colonization, ethnic cleansing.
Hurt feeling debates are about nothing, typically, but Israel/Palestine is very much about something.
>It's an emotional discussion, to be sure, but one based around hard facts on the ground: anti-Semitism/people calling for a second Holocaust, terrorism, mass expulsion, expropriation, colonization, ethnic cleansing.
For sure, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is substantial and deals with objective reality in the middle east that actually affects the lives of millions of people.
I'm just saying that the debate on my campus was never about any objective reality, and only revolved around the feelings of the participants.
The main claim was on both sides "if the school adopts decision _, my feelings will be hurt really bad".
Do you have any evidence that any of this is actually the case? In my experience it is Zionist feelings verses actual facts that BDS activists present about Israel's expansion. Your anecdotes against mine, I suppose.
I just happen to think it's a bad example because political correctness pervades all of politics, but (unlike say White vs Black or Male vs Female), for the Israel-Palestine issue only in the far left would does political correctness favor the Palestinians, while this is reversed in mainstream US politics. So I think it's important to point out that how this example differs from most forms of political correctness.
I feel that casting all Palestinians as eternal victims with no control over their fate until Israel decides otherwise is pretty patronizing. You're basically denying their agency and labeling them as hopeless children.
This is the opposite of what the initiative is about - it's about bringing normalcy to a troubled region, and if you'd read FAQ you'd see they stress the (relative) safety and economic stability of Gaza. It's a far cry for the "Warsaw Ghetto" and the "Palestinians as cockroaches" that you're throwing around here.
I'm also reading some cultural clash between American and Europeans/Mediterranean mentalities.
Prioritizing your business model over your product and answering amiably to annoying questions are decidedly "American" behaviors. That's not to say these aren't great practices for aspiring entrepreneurs.
When you're ready to apply again, maybe you should consider hiring an Italian guy with an American MBA who can bridge the two cultures?
(I think your idea is cool. If no one went for the long-shot projects Silicon Valley would be full of copy-cat boring App companies. Imagine how that would be like)
Totally wrong. The technical bias shown here is every bit as strong in American entrepreneurs who lack experience pitching a product. I see this still all the time and it took a few of these painful holding up a mirror experiences for me to start seeing things from multiple perspectives.
If they have the courage to really examine what went wrong here they will come back much stronger.
You're definitely right about the technical bias. Most comments here support this theory. I just offered a supplemental explanation, based on my experience.
Kudos to you for overcoming that bias. I'm still working on it.
"I have no clue why I still call it weekend, because there are weeks I don’t even dress myself, let alone keep track of what day it is".
To me it sounds like you're lonely, and it's affecting your overall emotional state.
The solution will not be a new clever time management system or reading a How-To-Monetize-Your-Zen self-help book.
Maybe take a few months off and go to a place with 'fun and sunshine'. Meet new people every week. Everyone's friendly when they're on vacation.
Costa Rica's really nice all year round and it's pretty cheap.
