> Under this paradigm, if one of the contributing factors in an incident was the user pushing “A” instead of “B”, we ask “how did the operator’s g function scor

> Under this paradigm, if one of the contributing factors in an incident was the user pushing “A” instead of “B”, we ask “how did the operator’s g function score a higher value for pushing A over B”? There’s no concept of “error” in this model. Instead, we can explore the individual’s context and history to get a better understanding of how their g function valued A over B. We accomplish this by talking to them. To me, the interesting thing about this model is that the "g function" is almost entirely unconscious. The conscious mind is like the tip of the iceberg, with the vast bulk of processing happening out-of-sight in the unconscious mind. Most of the time "human error" is actually a deliberate act on the part of the unconscious mind which is following a kind of program to achieve some goal or benefit. Sometimes people really do just plain make mistakes, usually due to fatigue or hunger or bad lighting or whatever. But most behaviour is deliberate, even when we don't know it. In fact, the conscious experience of making decisions is an illusion: brain scans show that your brain makes a decision and then a few milliseconds later "you" have the experience of "making" it. In other words, your "free will" is an illusion. (Although that doesn't rule out the possibility that your whole system, conscious and unconscious together, has free will!) There are two wrinkles: 1) the illusion of "free will" and "human error" is an extraordinarily deep component of almost all human societies (basically only a few Buddhist ashrams might be excluded, on good days.) And 2) the unconscious mind is not isolated in each human being, it's a "distributed OS" in computer terms, or in Jungian terms the unconscious mind is "collective". (There's nothing "woo-woo" about this. It's not telepathy, just high-bandwidth communication. E.g. take a video of folks in a cafe or something and slow it down or speed it up, it's pretty easy to see (at different time scales) the unconscious synchronization of strangers who are consciously ignoring each other. Or watch people walking together, typically their gaits will sync, even when their legs are different lengths. "Group mind" is the norm.) Anyway, all this to say that the model described in the post can be very powerful if you really run with it, but one should be aware of where it eventually leads. Once you open the box and look inside, you take on responsibility for dealing with the results.