Consider an axis of measurement of cognitive style, from high preference for concrete thinking, at one end, to high preference for abstract thinking, at the other end. This is measurable with various psychological instruments.

Now consider another axis of measurement of religious style, from fundamentalist at one end, to mystical at the other end. An instrument could easily be devised to measure that, by asking subjects to what degree they agree with various statements that are expressions of fundamentalist thought and mystical thought respectively.

Hypothesis 1: Concrete thinking will be highly correlated with fundamentalist religious thought, and abstract thinking will be highly correlated with mystical religious thought. This appears to be a fairly mainstream conclusion in comparative religion to date, but it would be interesting to test it specifically.

Hypothesis 2: Engineering students will show a greater degree of concrete thinking than science students and humanities students. This is testable by administering the abstract/concrete instrument to students in various departments.

If both of those hypotheses are supported firmly by data, then we have our connection between religious extremists and engineers.

As for what motivates engineers in general:

First of all there’s the delight in building stuff that works, which is very much similar to the mindset of people who are particularly good in the skilled trades.

Second, consider an axis of measurement of a social trait, from “desire to dominate” at one end to “desire to serve” at the other end. A psychological instrument could easily be developed to measure this (if it doesn’t already exist).

Hypothesis 3: Engineers are normally distributed on that axis. Some want to “conquer” one thing or another, some see themselves as serving humanity, most are in between.

So, someone with a predilection for religious fundamentalism and a personality trait for desire to dominate others, is already brain-wired to be biased toward violence. Give them the training in concrete thinking that goes with engineering, and it reinforces the exclusivity of their fundamentalist worldview. Individuals of this sort who fail at conventional careers, could be wooed by violent extremist groups.

Thankfully, the tendency to fail at engineering also carries over to a tendency to fail at bomb-making and suchlike. If you review some of these jihadi groups’ literature, you will discover that they are laughably bad at some of the things they would need to be “good at” in order for more of their attacks to succeed.

“Some day there’ll be a cure.”

“Engineering, where the noble semi-skilled laborers execute the vision of those who think and dream. Hello, Oompa Loompas of science!”
~Sheldon Cooper

A lot of the engineers I’ve encountered appear to be Cylons.

Science teach people that there is an objective truth, and that everyone who doesn’t believe in it is wrong, a crackpot.

There is an important difference between science and engineering that is being overlooked here.

Science tends to teach people to deal with the world as it is. For instance, you learn that this beautiful river valley is at high risk for earthquakes because a major fault line runs through it.

Engineering tends to teach people to deal with the world as they’d like it to be. For instance, you want to build a bridge over this river, despite the earthquake risk. So you find out what you need to do to make sure the bridge will still be standing after an earthquake. Or not, because you aren’t given enough budget to build a bridge that will withstand an earthquake, and the people who are paying you really want that bridge to be there. And depending on the location, you may end up displacing some of the local residents so that the bridge can be built.

The latter mindset–that you control the world, rather than vice versa–is more compatible with extremist views, because “death to the infidels” is a method for making the world conform better to your viewpoint, while viewing the fate of said infidels as an acceptable cost. It also explain why engineers are more likely to be right-wingers than scientists, and why, for example, a list of “scientists” who are opposed to the idea that humans are causing global warming will almost invariably consist mostly of engineers, and few if any scientists with any background in atmospheric science.

But there is more to jihadi engineers than that. In the US until recently, being a white Christian male was usually enough to guarantee some status in society. That built-in advantage is disappearing in most of the US, and some white Christian males are sufficiently unhappy with this state of affairs to take up extremist rhetoric (and in some cases, more than just rhetoric). That’s not so different from the people in majority Muslim countries who earn engineering degrees only to find there are no engineering jobs for them–some of the latter group become jihadis.

Here’s something to keep in mind. Don’t think of these “engineers” (really, “people with engineering background” not engineers. People with engineering degrees, not jobs) as the same as Engineers in the US.

As noted, in some societies, a status degree is a degree in engineering. These are individuals who seek status, attain it (because they get the degree) almost like getting admitted into a caste.

Then the status, the caste value, evaporates.

This then feeds the relative deprivation idea.

So this is not so much about engineers, or about American conceptions of what “engineers are like”, but rather, how some men respond to their own position in a highly stratified society.

So it may be true that during youth, such types view engineering as attractive for what it is: Expertise at knowing how the (physical) world works, and training in how to master it and control it to any desired end. There’s power in being an engineer (although we tend to think “politics” or becoming a corporate titan for that).

It wouldn’t be a huge leap of intellect to realize that this knowledge/control works VERY well in the physical sciences, works less so in politics & business, and diminishes in other areas.

So the draw of “be an engineer and have control over the world” possibly leads them to getting these degrees, especially if rising to becoming a political leader or a business head is (or seems) out of reach — often the case in the third world.

Then there’s the question of why they resort to rigid religious interpretations and mass murder/destruction…

I suspect this stems from desperation and inner despair over finding out that their romantic ideal of what “being an engineer” would do to solve their core problem doesn’t work. All religions promise this (engineering does not), but from looking at their results, religion is one of those dismal areas that doesn’t work either.

It could be that at that point, they give up hope/become angry. After all, if that’s what you’re seeking in life (relief from insecurity), and everything has failed you, what’s left? Religion had the audacity to promise it, but doesn’t — yet those who co-opt it and twist its message to justify savagery provide a perverted ‘out’: Authority, justification, and control, combined with a lovely savage outlet for their anger. Just sign up and start taking control over your fellow man and the world around you as you ‘vent’ on some poor slob whose head you’re cutting off with a hunting knife.