4 ms·

This can sometimes be intentional and driven by situational circumstance. I’ve seen this in an incident response setting where people at all levels didn’t want

This can sometimes be intentional and driven by situational circumstance. I’ve seen this in an incident response setting where people at all levels didn’t want to know as they’d be obliged to deal with it then. Peoples ethics extended so far as if they didn’t have actual evidence of a thing then it wasn’t a thing. This was driven by the finder being the one that had to fix it. So especially likely to occur to talented people and those with initiative as they’d be the ones that have to deal with it.

kromem 4y ago
You see a lot of the "see no data, hear no data" in the pharma industry. Mandatory reporting and investigation for adverse event reports means all sorts of loopholes are jumped through to avoid finding out about them. It's messed up.
- tunap 4y ago
  Corporate is rife with pre-meditated liability avoidance loopholes. Plausible deniability reigns supreme.
  - slickrick216 4y ago
    Exactly mix the plausible deniability with discovery processes and you get to the point where people couldn’t do the right thing even if they wanted to as they don’t know about it.
derbOac 4y ago
I can see some of it driven by situations where nothing could be done to prevent a negative outcome as well: if a death is unpreventable, what's the point in knowing it's coming? I think that's implicit in many of the events in the paper's studies (or explicit? I didnt read it carefully), this idea that they're unavoidable. Maybe that's consistent with what you're saying, in the sense that something unavoidable has infinitely high amounts of cost associated with it in terms of rectification or prevention.
- slickrick216 4y ago
  Yeah I can see that in some scenarios there’s a no win for the business or the team. Especially information spillage where the cleanup is usually non effective messy and long. Combine that with them not being interesting to work people actively avoid them. There is an I counter example as well. Where there’s no perceived benefit however there actually is one you just didn’t realise it. Some sort of FOMO with out the fear and you do miss out.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
oblib 4y ago
That is so spot on. When I was in my early teens I started working for a few small businesses that made mods to vans for people in wheelchairs to drive. I built and installed those as instructed without question. By the time I was in my late teens I realized there were some dangerous flaws in some of the things we were doing and began pointing them out. For the most part when I did that the design was modified to address the flaw, but one time involved more than just a tweak and would've been costly and I was told "You're not qualified to evaluate this", and that was true in as much as I had no degree in engineering. What I did have by then was years of experience with how things break and fail. One example is a company I subcontracted work for had a design for a device that moved the driver's seat in a van backwards about two feet on a set of rails so a paraplegic could slide from the wheelchair to the drivers seat, and then move the seat forward towards the driver's controls. They wanted me to build and install them. They used a rack gear and power window motor for a car to do this. The rack gear was made of steel, but the power window motor gear was made of plastic and cheap cast aluminum, and that plastic gear was all that was holding the driver's seat in place. They had no kind of latch at all to hold the seat in the driver's position so it was obvious that in a rear end collision the window motor gear and housing would break and the driver would be slammed backwards about 2.5 ft and then again forwards again with great force. They really did not want to know that, and refused to make any changes to the design. So I told the State inspector about it a few weeks later when he came to inspect a van that was finished for a client. Even though it was very simple he had no idea of how that device even worked, and told me so. So he went to the CEO of the company and told them about what I'd told him and I was fired. They went broke less than a year later so as far as I know there were never many of those shipped.

kromem 4y ago

You see a lot of the "see no data, hear no data" in the pharma industry. Mandatory reporting and investigation for adverse event reports means all sorts of loopholes are jumped through to avoid finding out about them. It's messed up.

tunap 4y ago
Corporate is rife with pre-meditated liability avoidance loopholes. Plausible deniability reigns supreme.
- slickrick216 4y ago
  Exactly mix the plausible deniability with discovery processes and you get to the point where people couldn’t do the right thing even if they wanted to as they don’t know about it.

derbOac 4y ago

I can see some of it driven by situations where nothing could be done to prevent a negative outcome as well: if a death is unpreventable, what's the point in knowing it's coming? I think that's implicit in many of the events in the paper's studies (or explicit? I didnt read it carefully), this idea that they're unavoidable. Maybe that's consistent with what you're saying, in the sense that something unavoidable has infinitely high amounts of cost associated with it in terms of rectification or prevention.

slickrick216 4y ago
Yeah I can see that in some scenarios there’s a no win for the business or the team. Especially information spillage where the cleanup is usually non effective messy and long. Combine that with them not being interesting to work people actively avoid them. There is an I counter example as well. Where there’s no perceived benefit however there actually is one you just didn’t realise it. Some sort of FOMO with out the fear and you do miss out.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

oblib 4y ago

That is so spot on. When I was in my early teens I started working for a few small businesses that made mods to vans for people in wheelchairs to drive. I built and installed those as instructed without question. By the time I was in my late teens I realized there were some dangerous flaws in some of the things we were doing and began pointing them out. For the most part when I did that the design was modified to address the flaw, but one time involved more than just a tweak and would've been costly and I was told "You're not qualified to evaluate this", and that was true in as much as I had no degree in engineering. What I did have by then was years of experience with how things break and fail. One example is a company I subcontracted work for had a design for a device that moved the driver's seat in a van backwards about two feet on a set of rails so a paraplegic could slide from the wheelchair to the drivers seat, and then move the seat forward towards the driver's controls. They wanted me to build and install them. They used a rack gear and power window motor for a car to do this. The rack gear was made of steel, but the power window motor gear was made of plastic and cheap cast aluminum, and that plastic gear was all that was holding the driver's seat in place. They had no kind of latch at all to hold the seat in the driver's position so it was obvious that in a rear end collision the window motor gear and housing would break and the driver would be slammed backwards about 2.5 ft and then again forwards again with great force. They really did not want to know that, and refused to make any changes to the design. So I told the State inspector about it a few weeks later when he came to inspect a van that was finished for a client. Even though it was very simple he had no idea of how that device even worked, and told me so. So he went to the CEO of the company and told them about what I'd told him and I was fired. They went broke less than a year later so as far as I know there were never many of those shipped.