A lot of people that like cars have been emotionally connected to the internal engine. These "car enthusiasts" enjoy everything about cars, albeit frequently do not analyze emerging technologies with a long-term vision. They like the sound the engine makes and the thrill of acceleration. That is nice and I can respect their decisions. That sentiment of connection to the internal engine has been challenged first by Tesla Roadster.

What I view as auto fans mistake in judgement is to portray electric cars through the lens of mistrust in the new design. Someone who has only driven IC cars will keep trying to find fault with a one that is not. Tesla is the new toy a boy can play with. Clarkson has been living with old habits and 'old' cars to question his own assumptions about car technology. This is what I had found when speaking with people in the automotive industry.

Yet, electric cars require a lot of future development to meet the high standards that they will be judged by.

Speculative fields have became more noticeable. Though, can you tell me what is not speculative in social culture?

If one were to push it, what you call "fake disciplines" can extend to most of human society. Don't go there.

My fake discipline comment is a direct response to the havoc wrought by attempting to place a normal distribution, which worked so nicely in insurance when dealing with things like lifespan, on top of a chaotic system like finance. Long Term Capital Management, Value at Risk, and other models from very, very smart quantitative minds who simply misunderstood the problem space and almost took down the world economy. I call that a "fake discipline".

Though - come on. Do not run into the cognitive framework where you start to compare disciplines. Viewing disciplines along ranks can start messing with you.

When I said I have read about FE and LTCM in the "Black Swan", I meant that the people working there are not complacent. The author of that book for example seems genuinely active - though might not be considered likeable. The virtue of the author's criticism to the field that he belongs, he shows the fluidity adherent to him and others within finance.

Let's compare it to an example from the automotive industry. Companies out of Detroit have been complacent, which had run into serious design troubles. They were in the business of making mediocre cars. When faced with the prospect of bankruptcy, Ford had the chance to reform before the financial crisis hit. GM and Chrysler - which was owned by Benz earlier - leadership flew to Washington to ask for unspecified amount of money. I cannot assign causality of badness in the current networked world, but the physical/manufacturing car guys seemed to be worse than LTCM. And they had the nerve to face California in court over car emission requirements. So, there are other people that have not acted with diligence to the community.

It is about people though. It is not about disciplines. It is all about people.

I don't understand. A fake discipline is a field that is complicated, important, and one where even smart people have difficulty understanding/modelling?

Is environmental engineering also a fake discipline since it's difficult to model and various disasters have resulted?

Hehe. Yes, I appreciate your clarification. That is true - especially as LTCM was full with PhDs. Though it also extends to a multitude of "empty suits" positions. These bright minds needed to think in that structured fashion in order for them to have the world make sense to. It is an excellent point. Nevertheless, with experience and ambition judgement becomes better.

I would like to point out research in low-probability events, response to too-big-to-fail, fat tails and black swans in defense of emerging Financial Engineering and Risk Management. The best defense of it that I have ever seen was in the book "The Black Swan".

fake discipline might have been a poor choice of words. My intent was to indict a process of using quantitative skills in a manner that was supposed to "add rigor" to finance, to encapsulate and tame risk. It didn't work.

"The Big Bang Theory" is your best choice to understand how scientists come off as. I have had myself my work-life priorities misplaced and have had my burnouts.

I had BS and I had enrolled in an PhD engineering degree. One of the departments have had people working and living in the lab. Those were 25-year old dedicated professionals. One of my friends was getting married. When we asked him when was the engagement party, he said he "had not time for it." Good for him. That was not the job for me. I want to experience my life. My roommate works in an electrical engineering company. He plans to move to another place - the work hours that the workers attend to there are 8 am to 8 pm. For, well, 40 years? That is nowhere near normal-life-ish.

You also forgot other jobs also offer sunlight-filled offices and certainly more common human contacts. I do not want to spend my life in an isolated place or holed up in a windowsless lab. It sometimes happens in some science jobs.

I think the scientists have been resilient folks, when we put the settings that they have had to survive in. They have not been taught some social skills as much. Which you do not teach - you just let the people play them out. I am reading an IT-job interview book, which I quote: "however, like the engineers, many computer scientists have sub-standard communications skills."