SH47: They should have lined in. I would have done that.

In this podcast episode, we explore a diving incident where two divers entered a wreck without laying a line, resulting in a challenging situation inside a room. We reflect on common responses that often follow such incidents, emphasizing the limitations of retrospective counterfactuals, where people tend to say what the divers "should have," "could have," or "would have" done differently. The episode discusses biases and the importance of understanding the local rationality of those involved, urging listeners to consider the perspectives of the divers at the time. Gareth provides insights into various factors affecting decisions, such as training availability, financial constraints, and the emotional significance of past experiences. The episode concludes by highlighting the prevalence of counterfactuals in discussions about incidents and encourages listeners to approach learning from adverse events with an open mind, understanding the complexity and challenges involved in change. Original blog: https://www.thehumandiver.com/blog/counterfactuals   Links: The power of hindsight blog: https://www.thehumandiver.com/blog/joining-dots-is-easy-if-you-know-the-outcome Hindsight bias blog: https://www.thehumandiver.com/blog/its-obvious-why-it-happened We can’t pay more attention blog: https://www.thehumandiver.com/blog/cant_pay_MORE_attention Balasore train crash news report 1: https://indianexpress.com/article/india/odisha-accident-wrong-labelling-of-location-box-wires-led-to-mix-up-crs-report-8699655/ Balasore train crash news report 2: https://thewire.in/law/cbi-arrests-three-railway-employees-for-balasore-train-tragedy   Tags: English, Cognitive Biases, Counterfactuals, Decision Making, Hindsight Bias, Incident Analysis, Just Culture