))
SH153: Why ‘They should have’, ‘...could have’ or ‘I would have..’ do not improve diving safety
Manage episode 469732794 series 3516753
Content provided by Gareth Lock at The Human Diver. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by Gareth Lock at The Human Diver or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://ppacc.player.fm/legal.
In this episode, we explore the concept of counterfactual reasoning—our tendency to imagine how incidents could have been avoided by different actions—and why it falls short in improving safety. While this type of hindsight helps us feel better by creating a sense of order, it doesn’t address the real-world conditions or decisions that led to the incident. Instead of asking, "Why didn’t they do Y instead of X?" we should ask, "How did doing X make sense to them at the time?" By focusing on what actually happened and understanding the context, we can uncover valuable insights to improve safety and decision-making in diving.
Original blog: https://www.thehumandiver.com/blog/counter-factuals
Tags: English, Cognitive Biases, Decision Making, Gareth Lock, Incident Analysis
168 episodes
Share
