SH153: Why ‘They should have’, ‘...could have’ or ‘I would have..’ do not improve diving safety episode artwork

EPISODE · Mar 5, 2025 · 5 MIN

SH153: Why ‘They should have’, ‘...could have’ or ‘I would have..’ do not improve diving safety

from Counter-Errorism in Diving: Applying Human Factors to Diving

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

Episode metadata supplied by the publisher feed · Published Mar 5, 2025

Embed this episode

NOW PLAYING

SH153: Why ‘They should have’, ‘...could have’ or ‘I would have..’ do not improve diving safety

0:00 5:55

No transcript for this episode yet

We transcribe on demand. Request one and we'll notify you when it's ready — usually under 10 minutes.

No similar episodes found.

No similar podcasts found.

Frequently Asked Questions

How long is this episode of Counter-Errorism in Diving: Applying Human Factors to Diving?

This episode is 5 minutes long.

When was this Counter-Errorism in Diving: Applying Human Factors to Diving episode published?

This episode was published on March 5, 2025.

Can I download this Counter-Errorism in Diving: Applying Human Factors to Diving episode?

Yes. Use the download control on the episode player to save the publisher-provided media file.
URL copied to clipboard!