I think we have to distinguish intelligence from "successful learned response" in a competitive society. Engineers are basically the "convenient" version of scientists. We learn just enough to be successful in a specialized field. That makes the average engineer/technocrat undereducated (with or without credentials) and focused narrowly on our own lives, and in a world where money depends on technology, one doesn't have to learn a lot about money (and sociology) if they learn a lot about a particular technology and can show up and be productive.

Unfortunately, from a sociological standpoint, the technical fields tend to be filled (on average) with a more conservative, competitive and masculine mindset because that is enough for success. This culture has been dominant since the Industrial Revolution, other than a few exceptional periods of humanitarian recovery after economic disasters caused by blind pursuit of money and growth. Success based on competitive cunning does substitute for intelligence for a while, but it's not the same as intentional intelligent action.

Market-based society eschews intelligence because brands and product loyalties depend on unquestioned actions at the purchase point: deferring mindfulness to competitive pricing and wages.