4 ms·

The risks are highest when learners are at a beginner to intermediate stage. They know the basics, and have gained some confidence, but don't know enough to get

The risks are highest when learners are at a beginner to intermediate stage. They know the basics, and have gained some confidence, but don't know enough to get themselves out of trouble. This is called Stage 1 in the Gordon Model of learning: unconscious incompetence.

Breza 5y ago
That reminds me of when a family friend from church needed help clearing his land and thought the easiest approach would be to teach an overconfident 14 year old (me) to drive his tractor. He told me I would never be worse at operating it than the second time we went out. He was right.
datameta 5y ago
Also known as an advanced beginner, the stage before competency. Someone who has enough knowledge to, as they say, "be dangerous".
- bujak300 5y ago
  They call it the "intermediate syndrome" in freeflying.
gilgad13 5y ago
While this is true, in the context of alpine climbing where I first heard this statement, the bold alpinists who die young are very much not beginner-intermediates. I've interpreted this differently than just the "Bathtub Curve"[1] applied to dangerous pursuits. Rather, there is a certain amount of objective risk in alpine environments, and the more time you put yourself in that environment, especially in locations you aren't familiar with, the greater the chance that something will eventually go wrong. I'm always surprised by the number of famous alpinists who weren't killed on their progressive, headline-capturing attempts but rather on training attempts and lesser objectives. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathtub_curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathtub_curve
- Aeolun 5y ago
  (Example) When you go climbing somewhere, you have like a 40% of getting killed that you can mitigate completely by skill, and an additional 0.1% chance that something goes wrong by some fluke, that you can’t mitigate at all. Pretty good if you go climbing 10 times a year. Pretty bad if you go 1000 times.
- PaulHoule 5y ago
  My wife teaches people to ride horses for a living so we talk about the safety of that. You hear a lot about people who get seriously injured riding who are often professionals or people who ride competitively at a high level. They are doing dangerous things and doing a lot of them. We don't think it is that dangerous for people who ride at the level we do, out of maybe 15 years we've had one broken bone. The other day I noticed that we had acquired a used horse blanket from another barn in the area which is a running joke at our barn because of their bad safety culture. They are a "better" barn than ours in that they are attached to the show circuit at a higher level than the bottom, but we are always hearing about crazy accidents that happen there. When I was learning to ride there they had a confusing situation almost like https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19810217-2 https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19810217-... with too many lessons going on at once where I wound up going over a jump by accident after a "near miss" in which I almost did. (I never thought I could go over a jump and survive, as it was I had about two seconds to figure out that I had to trust the horse and hang on and I did alright...)
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- hailwren 5y ago
  Another good allegory is that, in the US Air Force, the flight crews considered most dangerous are those with the highest collective rank. Sure, the young crews are learning but the old ones still think they know it all and have often forgotten critical details.
- bujak300 5y ago
  Need to consider that headline capturing objectives ar a few in a lifetime and training goes on all the time.
bluGill 5y ago
No, the risks are greatest when you reach complacency. Beginners, even bold ones, take some care. You mostly see this in things like forklift drivers because it takes years of doing the same thing every day before you really get expert enough to be complacent
- throw1234651234 5y ago
  There is also something called "Normalization of Deviance", defined better by a quote: "Today, the term normalization of deviance — the gradual process by which the unacceptable becomes acceptable in the absence of adverse consequences — can be applied as legitimately to the human factors risks in airline operations as to the Challenger accident." * Most of you have probably heard of it in the context of fighter pilots doing riskier and riskier maneuvers, but it seems to apply to drivers who speed a lot. 80 starts seeming really slow to them after doing it for years. * https://flightsafety.org/asw-article/normalization-of-deviance/#:~:text=Today%2C%20the%20term%20normalization%20of,as%20to%20the%20Challenger%20accident https://flightsafety.org/asw-article/normalization-of-devian....
  - Litost 5y ago
    Thanks for posting these, I'd only seen Normalisation of Deviance mentioned in these two youtube videos by Mike Mullane and never thought to look any further: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ljzj9Msli5o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ljzj9Msli5o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWxk5t4hFAg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWxk5t4hFAg and the uploader references some further links: https://www.fireengineering.com/leadership/firefighter-safety-the-normalization-of-deviance/ https://www.fireengineering.com/leadership/firefighter-safet... https://www.flightsafetyaustralia.com/2017/05/safety-in-mind-normalisation-of-deviance/ https://www.flightsafetyaustralia.com/2017/05/safety-in-mind... and references this book (about the Challenger Disaster): https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B011DAS53Y/ https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B011DAS53Y/ which has an overview here: http://web.mit.edu/esd.83/www/notebook/The%20Challenger%20Launch%20Decision_1.pdf http://web.mit.edu/esd.83/www/notebook/The%20Challenger%20La... including these two excerpts I found interesting in this context: "Chapter nine she explains how conformity to the rules, and the work culture, led to the disaster, and not the violation of any rules, as thought by many of the investigators. She concludes her book with a chapter on lessons learned." "She mainly emphasizes on the long-term impact of institutionalization of the political pressure and economic factors, that results in a “culture of production”."

Breza 5y ago

That reminds me of when a family friend from church needed help clearing his land and thought the easiest approach would be to teach an overconfident 14 year old (me) to drive his tractor. He told me I would never be worse at operating it than the second time we went out. He was right.

datameta 5y ago

Also known as an advanced beginner, the stage before competency. Someone who has enough knowledge to, as they say, "be dangerous".

bujak300 5y ago
They call it the "intermediate syndrome" in freeflying.

gilgad13 5y ago

While this is true, in the context of alpine climbing where I first heard this statement, the bold alpinists who die young are very much not beginner-intermediates. I've interpreted this differently than just the "Bathtub Curve"[1] applied to dangerous pursuits. Rather, there is a certain amount of objective risk in alpine environments, and the more time you put yourself in that environment, especially in locations you aren't familiar with, the greater the chance that something will eventually go wrong. I'm always surprised by the number of famous alpinists who weren't killed on their progressive, headline-capturing attempts but rather on training attempts and lesser objectives. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathtub_curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathtub_curve

Aeolun 5y ago
(Example) When you go climbing somewhere, you have like a 40% of getting killed that you can mitigate completely by skill, and an additional 0.1% chance that something goes wrong by some fluke, that you can’t mitigate at all. Pretty good if you go climbing 10 times a year. Pretty bad if you go 1000 times.
PaulHoule 5y ago
My wife teaches people to ride horses for a living so we talk about the safety of that. You hear a lot about people who get seriously injured riding who are often professionals or people who ride competitively at a high level. They are doing dangerous things and doing a lot of them. We don't think it is that dangerous for people who ride at the level we do, out of maybe 15 years we've had one broken bone. The other day I noticed that we had acquired a used horse blanket from another barn in the area which is a running joke at our barn because of their bad safety culture. They are a "better" barn than ours in that they are attached to the show circuit at a higher level than the bottom, but we are always hearing about crazy accidents that happen there. When I was learning to ride there they had a confusing situation almost like https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19810217-2 https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19810217-... with too many lessons going on at once where I wound up going over a jump by accident after a "near miss" in which I almost did. (I never thought I could go over a jump and survive, as it was I had about two seconds to figure out that I had to trust the horse and hang on and I did alright...)
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
hailwren 5y ago
Another good allegory is that, in the US Air Force, the flight crews considered most dangerous are those with the highest collective rank. Sure, the young crews are learning but the old ones still think they know it all and have often forgotten critical details.
bujak300 5y ago
Need to consider that headline capturing objectives ar a few in a lifetime and training goes on all the time.

bluGill 5y ago

No, the risks are greatest when you reach complacency. Beginners, even bold ones, take some care. You mostly see this in things like forklift drivers because it takes years of doing the same thing every day before you really get expert enough to be complacent

throw1234651234 5y ago
There is also something called "Normalization of Deviance", defined better by a quote: "Today, the term normalization of deviance — the gradual process by which the unacceptable becomes acceptable in the absence of adverse consequences — can be applied as legitimately to the human factors risks in airline operations as to the Challenger accident." * Most of you have probably heard of it in the context of fighter pilots doing riskier and riskier maneuvers, but it seems to apply to drivers who speed a lot. 80 starts seeming really slow to them after doing it for years. * https://flightsafety.org/asw-article/normalization-of-deviance/#:~:text=Today%2C%20the%20term%20normalization%20of,as%20to%20the%20Challenger%20accident https://flightsafety.org/asw-article/normalization-of-devian....
- Litost 5y ago
  Thanks for posting these, I'd only seen Normalisation of Deviance mentioned in these two youtube videos by Mike Mullane and never thought to look any further: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ljzj9Msli5o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ljzj9Msli5o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWxk5t4hFAg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWxk5t4hFAg and the uploader references some further links: https://www.fireengineering.com/leadership/firefighter-safety-the-normalization-of-deviance/ https://www.fireengineering.com/leadership/firefighter-safet... https://www.flightsafetyaustralia.com/2017/05/safety-in-mind-normalisation-of-deviance/ https://www.flightsafetyaustralia.com/2017/05/safety-in-mind... and references this book (about the Challenger Disaster): https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B011DAS53Y/ https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B011DAS53Y/ which has an overview here: http://web.mit.edu/esd.83/www/notebook/The%20Challenger%20Launch%20Decision_1.pdf http://web.mit.edu/esd.83/www/notebook/The%20Challenger%20La... including these two excerpts I found interesting in this context: "Chapter nine she explains how conformity to the rules, and the work culture, led to the disaster, and not the violation of any rules, as thought by many of the investigators. She concludes her book with a chapter on lessons learned." "She mainly emphasizes on the long-term impact of institutionalization of the political pressure and economic factors, that results in a “culture of production”."