4 ms·

Can we stop threatening criminal negligence charge for every single mistakes people make? It's not going to improve performance in the next pandemic if people

by kiba 7y ago

Can we stop threatening criminal negligence charge for every single mistakes people make? It's not going to improve performance in the next pandemic if people are afraid of doing their job or engages in ass covering.

Aeolun 7y ago
Accepting any kind of help in a crisis seems reasonable.
omgJustTest 7y ago
This logic is healthy, however limited here. We had an infectious disease team consulting the president, it was removed. We had a CDC with 6-8bn dollars more funding when Trump took office. We have a president claiming currently that "the cure cannot be worse than the disease"... these are not a hypothetical threat and have direct and immediate consequences in the next months.
- Lldjjxnn 7y ago
  I thought the CDC funding cut didn't pass?
H8crilA 7y ago
Uhm, yes, skin in the game? Things generally don't improve because people get better. Things generally improve because bad people/groups/corporations/ideas fail. Way more people should be fired / tried / impeached. Need I remind you that nobody went to jail over 2008? It does make the system more healthy. If you're responsible for the health of some country you better be scared, because the consequences are dire, and your decisions are of utmost importance. I want that person to be on constant lookout for problems, bordering on desperation.
- kiba 7y ago
  Things generally don't improve because people get better. Things generally improve because bad people/groups/corporations/ideas fail. Things improve when we endeavor to make things better and test our ideas and willingness to learn from mistakes, especially so if we prioritize pandemic preparation. Punishing people for their mistakes lead to people hiding their mistakes, not trying their damn hardest not to make a mistake, especially since mistakes are probably inevitable in a complex and evolving situation like a potential pandemic.
  - greedo 7y ago
    I think people who mismanage situations should be fired. We fire our POTUS roughly every 8 years. My mgmt has made decisions during the pandemic that have endangered me and my coworkers. I think they should be fired as well.
- Natsu 7y ago
  That's effectively the complete opposite of how to actually eliminate errors. The way engineers do it involves depersonalizing it to get away from blame games, assessing all contributing causes, doing proper risk modeling and working to improve the systems so that they rely on human frailty as little as possible. Skin in the game is an easy concept we're all familiar with, but it generally leads to adverse behavior like gaming the numbers instead of fixing the problems. See, e.g. http://www.hazardcontrol.com/factsheets/principles/core-principles http://www.hazardcontrol.com/factsheets/principles/core-prin... --- "Herein, the term “unsafe condition” is retained, but the term “unsafe act” is rejected as historically leading to error or incomplete cause analysis. Rather, inappropriate human actions or inactions of persons that contribute to accidents (resulting from error or human nature associated with the common relevant human factor capabilities and limitations of men and women) are called “unsafe actions,” defined as unsafe system use methods and procedures, without any initial implication of fault or blame."
  - rubatuga 7y ago
    I think you're mainly describing the optimal culture for the organization or workplace, but either collectively or perhaps even just the leaders, they must recognize the importance of their decisions and the possibility to cause deaths. That's why research like what you mention is important, it shows how organizations and leaders with "skin in the game" can achieve success.
  - H8crilA 7y ago
    I don't think the concept is easy for people to understand at all. It's just darwinism really, but people think it's about punishment. Note that darwinism doesn't just reject bad ideas, it has a rather high and variable false positive rate. I.e. it's unfair, for example Ramanujan died prematurely despite being a genius and a gift to his species. But it is overall also quite effective. If you can game the numbers there's no real skin in the game. And people do! Just sell volatility ("everything will always be fine") regardless of the conditions, it will work wonders, until you blow up. The difference is that if you blow up your own money you cannot continue the game, whereas if you blow other people's money - you can.
- BeetleB 7y ago
  > Need I remind you that nobody went to jail over 2008? First, this is simply false. Second, can you name anyone who should have gone to jail and state the law they broke? Congress had eliminated a lot of regulations that could have prevented or tempered the meltdown. There were not really laws to break. And the population happily kept electing said people. The electorate had skin in the game. And they did not learn. Skin in the game is not that effective.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

by kiba 7y ago

Aeolun 7y ago

Accepting any kind of help in a crisis seems reasonable.

omgJustTest 7y ago

This logic is healthy, however limited here. We had an infectious disease team consulting the president, it was removed. We had a CDC with 6-8bn dollars more funding when Trump took office. We have a president claiming currently that "the cure cannot be worse than the disease"... these are not a hypothetical threat and have direct and immediate consequences in the next months.

Lldjjxnn 7y ago
I thought the CDC funding cut didn't pass?

H8crilA 7y ago

Uhm, yes, skin in the game? Things generally don't improve because people get better. Things generally improve because bad people/groups/corporations/ideas fail. Way more people should be fired / tried / impeached. Need I remind you that nobody went to jail over 2008? It does make the system more healthy. If you're responsible for the health of some country you better be scared, because the consequences are dire, and your decisions are of utmost importance. I want that person to be on constant lookout for problems, bordering on desperation.

kiba 7y ago
Things generally don't improve because people get better. Things generally improve because bad people/groups/corporations/ideas fail. Things improve when we endeavor to make things better and test our ideas and willingness to learn from mistakes, especially so if we prioritize pandemic preparation. Punishing people for their mistakes lead to people hiding their mistakes, not trying their damn hardest not to make a mistake, especially since mistakes are probably inevitable in a complex and evolving situation like a potential pandemic.
- greedo 7y ago
  I think people who mismanage situations should be fired. We fire our POTUS roughly every 8 years. My mgmt has made decisions during the pandemic that have endangered me and my coworkers. I think they should be fired as well.
Natsu 7y ago
That's effectively the complete opposite of how to actually eliminate errors. The way engineers do it involves depersonalizing it to get away from blame games, assessing all contributing causes, doing proper risk modeling and working to improve the systems so that they rely on human frailty as little as possible. Skin in the game is an easy concept we're all familiar with, but it generally leads to adverse behavior like gaming the numbers instead of fixing the problems. See, e.g. http://www.hazardcontrol.com/factsheets/principles/core-principles http://www.hazardcontrol.com/factsheets/principles/core-prin... --- "Herein, the term “unsafe condition” is retained, but the term “unsafe act” is rejected as historically leading to error or incomplete cause analysis. Rather, inappropriate human actions or inactions of persons that contribute to accidents (resulting from error or human nature associated with the common relevant human factor capabilities and limitations of men and women) are called “unsafe actions,” defined as unsafe system use methods and procedures, without any initial implication of fault or blame."
- rubatuga 7y ago
  I think you're mainly describing the optimal culture for the organization or workplace, but either collectively or perhaps even just the leaders, they must recognize the importance of their decisions and the possibility to cause deaths. That's why research like what you mention is important, it shows how organizations and leaders with "skin in the game" can achieve success.
- H8crilA 7y ago
  I don't think the concept is easy for people to understand at all. It's just darwinism really, but people think it's about punishment. Note that darwinism doesn't just reject bad ideas, it has a rather high and variable false positive rate. I.e. it's unfair, for example Ramanujan died prematurely despite being a genius and a gift to his species. But it is overall also quite effective. If you can game the numbers there's no real skin in the game. And people do! Just sell volatility ("everything will always be fine") regardless of the conditions, it will work wonders, until you blow up. The difference is that if you blow up your own money you cannot continue the game, whereas if you blow other people's money - you can.
BeetleB 7y ago
> Need I remind you that nobody went to jail over 2008? First, this is simply false. Second, can you name anyone who should have gone to jail and state the law they broke? Congress had eliminated a lot of regulations that could have prevented or tempered the meltdown. There were not really laws to break. And the population happily kept electing said people. The electorate had skin in the game. And they did not learn. Skin in the game is not that effective.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]