How important is armchair incident analysis?

[MXGratefulDiver]

So if you stopped driving drunk as a result of the incorrect speculation, it wasn't a good thing?

But statistically that is not a good assumption ... particularly where drunk drivers are concerned. Very, VERY few people who chronically drive drunk will stop because of someone else's accident. Most won't stop driving drunk even when they, themselves are involved in an accident ... not until either they get killed or they end up killing someone else.

Just look at all the chronically dangerous behavior people engage in. Smoking's been known to kill people for almost a half-century now ... yet people still smoke. Thousands of young people start every day ... knowing full well the facts behind the research, and what it will eventually do to them.

Same goes for drunk driving, certain types of sexual behavior, morbid overating, and a raft of other problems that kill way more people every year than scuba diving does. People know about it ... they simply choose to believe it won't happen to them.

We are all very good at justifying our behavior ... whatever it may be. We do exactly what we decide to do, and ignore any facts that prove to be "inconvenient" to our way of thinking.

It's part of being human ... and we're all hard-wired to operate within certain degrees of those parameters.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[HowardE]

While we're on the topic...

Does everyone agree that - if there is an analysis thread (of whatever kind) that condolences should go somewhere else.

Not to sound cold... But it is a little weird to be discussing in depth, then someone throws in a "I send my warmest heartfelt condolences to the family..."

 

[HowardE]

Most won't stop driving drunk even when they, themselves are involved in an accident ... not until either they get killed or they end up killing someone else.

Or if they lose their license for the 3rd time after getting a few DUI's, or maybe a court ordered sobriety.

 

[ItsBruce]

In my experience, there is a gap between theory and practice. We are taught rules, whether as divers, drivers, pilots, etc., but mostly in a vacumn. It isn't until one sees how the rules apply in actual situations, one can fully grasp and then apply the rules. When one reads about an injury, particularly one resulting from a mistake, one may say "I wouldn't have done that." However, how true is that? It is only speculation. The one who made the mistake probably would have said "I wouldn't have done that." Only after seeing the situation and result can one say "I won't do that if it ever comes up." As such, armchair analysiis has its place. It is comparable to "What would you do if ..."

 

[Scuba]

Diving accidents, more than most, seem to be chronically short of facts to study. We can reach conclusions based on what we believe probably happened ... but ultimately it's an exercise in reinforcing that which we are already inclined to believe.(Grateful Diver)

An educated explanation of how different possible actions can affect events and lead to one outcome can be very useful to some. By emphasizing the importance of the need to reinforce - or at least question the need to CHANGE our believes, tools and practices.

I agree Bob... it's usually more of an excersize in one upmanship. Many want to appear to be the most indignant about the way the victim (or their buddy) must have caused the accident. It's just a variation of the "Stroke du jour" syndrome.

I think people see what they want to see. What someone says is not necessarily what the other hears, much less understands. Some concentrate on what you relate above, while possibly ignoring useful information, while others reverse the order. And if during discussion some correctly or incorrectly interpret the telling of a factual perspective as indignation and upmanship, so be it, as long as it is respectful with good intentions. Facts hurt. Delusion is the sustenance of fools.

Concern for the well being of others, in the form of not causing further pain to agrieved relatives and friends has to be weighed with possibly helping others from suffering the same or similar painful outcome. I think you guys do a pretty good job overall, making changes as we go along trying to accommodate both interests as much as possible.

As many keep pointing out, accident analysis is not the only tool useful for the purpose of learning how to improve safety, yet, it is one of the tools useful for this purpose. I would say in general, use whatever tool you find the most useful. Let others use their tool of choice. If you object, change the channel, don't shut down the channel and make it more difficult, or deprive others of a tool to improve their safety. This is one of the main philosphical points here. Some want to not only decide which tools are to be used for themselves - but also for others. Live and let live. Just a general comment as I don't see anything to suggest the Accidents forum will be shut down or severely restricted. Nonetheless, it's important to address the issues and voices that appear inclined to proceed is such direction.

NetDoc, what's the deal with creating a condolences forum? Whats the hold up? What are the objections?

 

[HowardE]

An educated explanation of how different possible actions can affect events and lead to one outcome can be very useful to some. By emphasizing the importance of the need to reinforce - or at least question the need to CHANGE our believes, tools and practices.

But as others have said... this should not be confused with accident analysis. This is preventative hypothesising. What ifs are fine, and GREAT to run through. Useful for training. But they aren't analysis.

As many keep pointing out, accident analysis is not the only tool useful for the purpose of learning how to improve safety, yet, it is one of the tools useful for this purpose. I would say in general, use whatever tool you find the most useful. Let others use their tool of choice. If you object, change the channel, don't shut down the channel and make it more difficult, or deprive others of a tool to improve their safety. This is one of the main philosphical points here. Some want to not only decide which tools are to be used for themselves - but also for others. Live and let live. Just a general comment as I don't see anything to suggest the Accidents forum will be shut down or severely restricted. Nonetheless, it's important to address the issues and voices that appear inclined to proceed is such direction.

NetDoc, what's the deal with creating a condolences forum? Whats the hold up? What are the objections?

Perhaps seperate discussions are warranted. Real accident reporting with facts only, and possibly a what if scenario type sub-forum where people can theorize until they're blue in the face. The theories wouldn't need names, since they're not actually reality, merely based on something that may have happened.

 

[Scuba]

But as others have said... this should not be confused with accident analysis. This is preventative hypothesising. What ifs are fine, and GREAT to run through. Useful for training. But they aren't analysis.

This is been addressed several times. Reasoning is part of the analytical process.. Speculation is part of the reasoning process. I think it's just a matter what we understand takes place during analysis.

Accident result: 5

Know facts: 1+2+2.

Simple. We have and know all the facts necessary to make a conclusive incontrovertible dertermination of the cause of accident. We even have the exact sequence. No speculation necessary.

Accident result: 5

Known facts: 1 and 2, unknown order.

Difficult. We will never reach a conclusive incontrovertial result. Did 1 come before 2. Speculation. We can conclusively say 1 or 2 other factors caused the accident. But was it 2 or 1+1. here does it fit in the sequence. Speculation. We can also exclude 3 and 4 and so forth as causal factors.

Are both of these useful forms of accident analysis? One thing is certain they are both forms of accident analysis utilizing the best infomation available from which useful information MAY derive, in either case.

Perhaps seperate discussions are warranted. Real accident reporting with facts only, and possibly a what if scenario type sub-forum where people can theorize until they're blue in the face. The theories wouldn't need names, since they're not actually reality, merely based on something that may have happened.

Yes, I agree, it is extremely important to know precisely what the incontrovertible facts are, if any, used in the analytical process. Don't really think we need two forums though. Maybe they should be posted on sticky post at the top of the thread.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Or if they lose their license for the 3rd time after getting a few DUI's, or maybe a court ordered sobriety.

We have many cases, one recently here, of someone who was involved in a fatal car accident after multiple DUI's and after having lost her license.

People learn exactly what they decide they want to learn ... "facts" often have little to do with it.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[H2Andy]

So if you stopped driving drunk as a result of the incorrect speculation, it wasn't a good thing?

it's just that i don't need to do accident analysis to stop driving drunk.

i know it will get me in trouble with the law, and i know that it's not a safe
thing to do.

i don't have to study the accidents of drunk drivers in detail to know that.

just like i don't have to study accident analysis to know it's a good thing
to plan your gas consumption. or to not exceed MOD. i don't need to know
that XYZ died as a result of exceeding MOD yesterday to figure out that's
not a good thing.

i can do that all on theory.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

An educated explanation of how different possible actions can affect events and lead to one outcome can be very useful to some. By emphasizing the importance of the need to reinforce - or at least question the need to CHANGE our believes, tools and practices.

I agree ... but that's not accident analysis, it's speculation about possible causes and potential outcomes. Those are two very different things ... and I say we're free to "create" any speculative scenario we choose and discuss it to our heart's content ... in fact, one of our members does that often, and his threads are invariably the most active ... and controversial ... ones on ScubaBoard.

I think people see what they want to see. What someone says is not necessarily what the other hears, much less understands. Some concentrate on what you relate above, while possibly ignoring useful information, while others reverse the order. And if during discussion some correctly or incorrectly interpret the telling of a factual perspective as indignation and upmanship, so be it, as long as it is respectful with good intentions. Facts hurt. Delusion is the sustenance of fools.

I disagree ... we all interpret facts to suit our particular perspectives on a given topic. We all delude ourselves by ignoring or rationalizing that which does not fit our preconceived view of the situation. In fact, given any possible scenario I can often predict in advance who will respond, and what they will have to say about it. Anybody who's been on ScubaBoard for more than a year or two could do the same. Will anyone really learn anything from that? Will anyone ever really change the opinion they had before the conversation ever took place? Perhaps, but rarely.

In the long run, delusion is the sustenance of the human race. Some of us are better at it than others, but we all practice it to one degree or another. If we did not, there would be no controversies.

Concern for the well being of others, in the form of not causing further pain to agrieved relatives and friends has to be weighed with possibly helping others from suffering the same or similar painful outcome. I think you guys do a pretty good job overall, making changes as we go along trying to accommodate both interests as much as possible.

I think this is a good example of delusion. How many people, really, will be helped by these discussions? How many people will be hurt? And to what degree? How many people already reject common-sense diving safety practices out-of-hand ... without giving much real thought to why they might want to change? Frankly, I see it all the time ... even by those who are clamouring for analysis of every accident they read about.

You want accident analysis? Here's mine ... the majority of diving accidents are the result of two things ...

1). People ignoring what they were taught in their classes, and violating basic safety protocols.

2). People thinking that their skills are better than they actually are ... and getting themselves into situations they don't know how to get themselves out of.

Most of the accidents I have first-hand knowledge of boil down to one or both of those two things.

As many keep pointing out, accident analysis is not the only tool useful for the purpose of learning how to improve safety, yet, it is one of the tools useful for this purpose. I would say in general, use whatever tool you find the most useful. Let others use their tool of choice. If you object, change the channel, don't shut down the channel and make it more difficult, or deprive others of a tool to improve their safety. This is one of the main philosphical points here. Some want to not only decide which tools are to be used for themselves - but also for others. Live and let live. Just a general comment as I don't see anything to suggest the Accidents forum will be shut down or severely restricted. Nonetheless, it's important to address the issues and voices that appear inclined to proceed is such direction.

Well, here's my point ... what makes people think they have a "right" to know the details of any accident I might have during the pursuit of my recreational activities. Unless I specifically say so, it's none of your business. Are you my employer? Are you the government? Or am I some publicly elected entity who's answerable to those who elected me? No ... I'm a private citizen, entitled to my privacy. You are only entitled to know about me that which I choose to allow you to know. Beyond that, you have no rights.

Now ... I will state here that I don't really have any objection to you dissecting any accident I might have. But that is only because I willingly give you the freedom to do so. If the victim, or the victim's family, requests otherwise ... then I think we should respect their wishes. We have no God-given rights to poke our noses into someone else's sorrow ... and often when we do the only thing we accomplish is to inflict pain on someone who's already hurting.

For the most part, people don't learn from discussions about accidents ... because those discussions invariably turn into "blamestorming", where facts are secondary to an in-depth analysis of "what I would have done". And second-guessing an accident situation is much easier from the safety of a keyboard than it is in real life, where you may be stressed, narc'ed, or dealing with problems unrelated to the dive itself.

Again I ask ... what do you really hope to learn? And at who's expense?

... Bob (Grateful Diver)