SH153: Why ‘They should have’, ‘...could have’ or ‘I would have..’ do not improve diving safety
Counter-Errorism in Diving: Applying Human Factors to Diving · Gareth Lock at The Human Diver
Audio is streamed directly from the publisher (episodes.captivate.fm) as published in their RSS feed. Play Podcasts does not host this file. Rights-holders can request removal through the copyright & takedown page.
Show Notes
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