|
|
|
|
|
by bjornsing
1722 days ago
|
|
These articles always skip over the all important context: What is the engineering team supposed to accomplish? > After a baseline level of competency is satisfied, who you hire does not matter. For your average CRUD web app this is obviously true. For the Manhattan Project it’s obviously false. Most engineering work falls somewhere in-between. |
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calutron_Girls
These were high school graduates (largely female), who sat around fiddling with the controls to manually run the uranium purification knobs.
Apparently, engineers and scientists were really bad at this job. I don't know how they figured it out, but high school females had just the right mindset to watch the control panel and move the dials correctly.
None of the Calutron Girls knew they were making the bomb. In fact, the article where I read about them was an interview with an old-lady in the 2000s, who was surprised to learn that her high-school summer job was building the A-Bomb!! I think they were told that it was very important for the war effort that they do their job correctly, but that was about it.
------------
So even for an incredibly complicated job like the Manhattan project (which obviously needed top-tier scientists), it turns out that top-tier scientists / engineers simply don't have the mindset to do some dreary day-to-day tasks. Other people (such as the Calutron Girls) may end up having a better mindset to do these parts of the job.
I wouldn't be surprised if our understanding of human psychology, sociology, and group-dynamics are still poor today. The ideal team composition is still a big mystery, especially on big hypothetical jobs like a "Manhattan Project".