3 ms·
Why we act at all is not relevant here. The fact is that policy and training produce behavioral outcomes. So if you want to change a behavior in a group of empl
by bdamm 6y ago
Why we act at all is not relevant here. The fact is that policy and training produce behavioral outcomes. So if you want to change a behavior in a group of employees, you can train them. What to train them on, how to train them, and how to encourage adherence to the training are the subjects here. You can choose to spend your energy in philosophy or psychology but that's too big a question if you just want to understand how and why doctors wash their hands.
- wombatmobile 6y ago> What to train them on, how to train them, and how to encourage adherence to the training are the subjects here Yep. The fact that enough doctors are in breach of the protocol, despite all the training and motivators, suggests we do need to look deeper. I'm not sure why you would reject psychology or neuroscience insights into the causes of behavior. Aren't those the disciplines that provide a scientific basis for constructing training protocols? Philosophy just tells us that the scientists are limited by conscious awareness, which means they don't have access to the data to be able to determine themselves why they do or don't make a behavior.