7 ms·

I'm reminded of the story about improving the armor on airplanes in World War 2. They were looking at where the fighters had been hit by enemy fire and improvin

by gnu8 5y ago

I'm reminded of the story about improving the armor on airplanes in World War 2. They were looking at where the fighters had been hit by enemy fire and improving the armor in those areas, until someone realized they should be armoring the areas where there were no bullet holes - because the planes hit in those areas didn't come back at all. Likely the same principle applies to the logging boots. Logging boots without steel toes were probably damaged to the point of. being unusable (to say nothing of the logger's foot) and they were discarded. I don't claim to know anything about sports but in the industrial environment, I am not going to be convinced that less PPE to make people work more carefully is a good idea. The idea is attractive as a paradox but it is beyond absurd to consider in practice - in fact it is barbaric.

amenghra 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
- gnu8 5y ago
  Thank you, I could remember the story but not the word for it.
marttt 5y ago
> The idea is attractive as a paradox but it is beyond absurd to consider in practice - in fact it is barbaric. Agreed, it would definitely be barbaric when it comes to contemporary forestry or other industrial environments. It can be, though, that since those 1980s-or-so workers couldn't even imagine getting a pair of extra safe logging boots, they were somehow (subconsciously?) more attentive about their bodily coordination and movements during chainsaw work. Because of the laymans' boots, there was absolutely no way you could allow yourself to saw towards your feet, for example. These days, you should never do it, but when it happens, you'll probably get away with a fright thanks to the protective footwear. In other words, to a considerable extent, maybe humans do adapt themselves to the safety level they have at hand -- or what they could have in theory? That said, using a chainsaw these days without protective boots would surely be really silly to my mind (why take the risk when these boots exist and are easily available). I don't think anybody who's serious really does this either. Thanks for pointing the discussion to survivorship bias in this regard, though. You got me.

by gnu8 5y ago

amenghra 5y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias

gnu8 5y ago
Thank you, I could remember the story but not the word for it.

marttt 5y ago

> The idea is attractive as a paradox but it is beyond absurd to consider in practice - in fact it is barbaric. Agreed, it would definitely be barbaric when it comes to contemporary forestry or other industrial environments. It can be, though, that since those 1980s-or-so workers couldn't even imagine getting a pair of extra safe logging boots, they were somehow (subconsciously?) more attentive about their bodily coordination and movements during chainsaw work. Because of the laymans' boots, there was absolutely no way you could allow yourself to saw towards your feet, for example. These days, you should never do it, but when it happens, you'll probably get away with a fright thanks to the protective footwear. In other words, to a considerable extent, maybe humans do adapt themselves to the safety level they have at hand -- or what they could have in theory? That said, using a chainsaw these days without protective boots would surely be really silly to my mind (why take the risk when these boots exist and are easily available). I don't think anybody who's serious really does this either. Thanks for pointing the discussion to survivorship bias in this regard, though. You got me.