• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How much do screw-ups cost the economy?

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
As I was watching videos in another thread (One Of Those OMG Incidents) of forklift crashes, crane fails, and other such disasters, I wondered how often this happens and how much it actually costs in terms of lost revenue, insurance, costs being passed down to consumers, etc.

I realize nobody is perfect, and even I've made mistakes on occasion - but never anything on this scale.

I've also attended work meetings where risk management was discussed, and I found a site which talks about risk assessments (focusing on the Fukushima nuclear plant disaster): Probabilistic Risk Assessment - Lessons Learned from the Fukushima Nuclear Accident for Improving Safety of U.S. Nuclear Plants - NCBI Bookshelf

Numerous definitions exist on the meaning of risk and risk assessment. A working definition of risk is the “set of triplets” definition (Kaplan and Garrick, 1981). It has been used in many applications, but particularly by the nuclear power industry and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. According to this definition, the question “What is the risk?” is really three separate questions:

1.
What can go wrong?

2.
How likely is that to happen?

3.
What are the consequences if it does happen?

Risk can be defined mathematically using the following expression:

R = {(Si, Li, Xi)}c

where

R denotes the risk attendant to the system or activity of interest;

Si denotes the ith risk scenario (a description of the ith “what can go wrong” scenario);

Li denotes the likelihood that the ith scenario will happen, with uncertainty; and

Xi denotes the consequences if the ith scenario does happen.

The outer brackets in {(Si, Li, Xi,)} imply “the set of” triplets and the subscript c indicates that the set of triplets is “complete” (i.e., all, or all of the important, triplets are included in the set). In other words, “risk” is a set of scenarios, likelihoods, and consequences. In practice, these can be assembled into a variety of forms to represent the risk of the system being evaluated.

I wonder where Homer Simpson fits in to this assessment. Are there some people who are just naturally unlucky and/or prone to screwing up?

I once knew a guy in my circle of friends named "Mel." He was a bit clumsy and dropped things a lot. He often knocked over cups, cans, spilling things. He didn't do it on purpose; these were accidents, but it got to the point where if anyone dropped anything or something like that, we would call it a "Mel," which became a generic term for any kind of screw up. He was a nice guy; everybody liked him, but you certainly wouldn't want him working in a nuclear power plant or driving a forklift.

It's not just industrial accidents, but there are plenty of examples of simple carelessness having disastrous and/or tragic results. I remember a malpractice lawsuit where a patient died because he was given the wrong blood type. Apparently, nobody bothered to check. I'm not a doctor, but even I can't see myself making that kind of mistake.

We see it in the justice system and law enforcement, where innocent people are sent to prison for crimes they didn't commit. Or we might hear of tragic shootings as a result of cops making mistakes. It reminds me of a line from the TV show Dragnet (where a reporter was challenging Sgt. Friday's statements that "sometimes police make mistakes): "A police officer with a gun has no business making a mistake."

I think the same principle can be applied to other professions as well.

Do we tolerate screw ups too much? Do we dismiss things too easily as "accidents will happen" or "he didn't mean to do that"? Should people who appear to be screw-ups or accident prone be in high-risk occupations, even despite whatever training or education they might have received?

If someone does something intentionally, such as malicious criminal damage, we punish them.

But if they "didn't mean to," it's different - even if they cause the same amount or greater damage. They can just say "Oops, my bad" and go on with their lives, while letting the insurance company pay the damages. With government workers, the taxpayers have to pay the damages, while the person making the screw-up seems protected from having to be personally accountable for their mistakes.

Thoughts?
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
One of the goals of training is to make the initial reaction to a situation be the *right* reaction to the situation. And, exactly this sort of 'screw up' is why there are usually pretty extensive checks (draw on the leg to be cut off) to make sure the right procedure is done to the right person in the right way.

Also, having these checks can seem like unnecessary interference in situations where everything is clear. People tend to balk at having rule and regulations where they think everything is obvious. It can feel like way too much 'busy work' for a simple procedure.

On the other hand, it is the nature of emergencies that things are under pressure. Even with extensive training, getting things right the first time (often the only time) in an emergency may not always happen.

But this is why we *require* extensive training of doctors (do they make the right decision quickly?) and police (can they make the right decision under pressure?). Perhaps we need to insure that this training is kept up on a regular basis, but even that is done.

Ultimately, the problem is that people are human. We *do* make mistakes, especially under pressure and in situations where we have not been trained. And, it may shock you to know, our doctors and police are, in fact, human.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
And, it may shock you to know, our doctors and police are, in fact, human.

Well, yeah, I understand that, but has anyone told them that? The way many of them act, they exude an attitude of arrogance and superiority, as if they think they're above the rest of us mere mortals. If that's what they think (and society seems to echo this view as well), then they should be held to a standard higher than that of ordinary humans. At least until they learn humility.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
I think the vast majority of our mistakes are made by assumption. No one checked the blood type because everyone assumed someone else did. No one took responsibility for 'making sure' because they all thought it was someone else's responsibility, or that someone else had already taken on that responsibility. We recently ordered a custom counter top for our break room at work and when it was installed, it was the wrong shape. Too much "front office" between the buyer and the builder, and now everyone's trying to blame everyone else. But none of them double checked. They all assumed their info. was right, including the person that wrote it down, wrong.

It isn't just that we don't know something. It's that we THINK WE DO KNOW when we really don't. It's that thinking that we do know that gets us every time.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
Systems can help. When I'm in a medical situation and I'm asked my name and birth date repeatedly, I try never to grump because I know why they are doing it.

I also read about reluctance on the part of some to adopt checklists in medical settings in spite of the lower mistake rate when they were used.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Systems can help. When I'm in a medical situation and I'm asked my name and birth date repeatedly, I try never to grump because I know why they are doing it.

I also read about reluctance on the part of some to adopt checklists in medical settings in spite of the lower mistake rate when they were used.
That reminds me....
If ever you go in for surgery, take a felt tip pen, & write
"No, not here" & "No, not this one" & "This one's a keeper."
where applicable.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Ultimately, the problem is that people are human. We *do* make mistakes, especially under pressure and in situations where we have not been trained. And, it may shock you to know, our doctors and police are, in fact, human.
Right. All of our processes - especially ones in emergency situations - should take into account that humans are both fallible and fragile, and address this as much as possible.

Police sometimes make fatal mistakes, but this can be addressed in a number of ways.

Sometimes, it might even be possible to remove the police officer from the dangerous situation - and therefore many risks to the police officer and the citizen - altogether. For instance, if you use photo radar for speed enforcement instead of a cop in a patrol car, suddenly:

- the cop isn't at risk from an attacker in the pulled-over car or of being hit by other vehicles while they're vulnerable.
- the citizen isn't at risk of being the victim of a police shooting.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
That reminds me....
If ever you go in for surgery, take a felt tip pen, & write
"No, not here" & "No, not this one" & "This one's a keeper."
where applicable.
When I had hernia surgery many years ago, I was asked "which side" and that was compared with the paperwork they had. And they marked the side as well. I noticed and remember that this was done.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I think the vast majority of our mistakes are made by assumption. No one checked the blood type because everyone assumed someone else did. No one took responsibility for 'making sure' because they all thought it was someone else's responsibility, or that someone else had already taken on that responsibility. We recently ordered a custom counter top for our break room at work and when it was installed, it was the wrong shape. Too much "front office" between the buyer and the builder, and now everyone's trying to blame everyone else. But none of them double checked. They all assumed their info. was right, including the person that wrote it down, wrong.

It isn't just that we don't know something. It's that we THINK WE DO KNOW when we really don't. It's that thinking that we do know that gets us every time.

I think that pretty much hits the nail on the head. I've had arguments with people (such as clerks and bureaucrats) who think they're right, but they turn out to be wrong. Some people can get so arrogant about it, as if they think they're infallible or that they're incapable of making mistakes. Or they don't even consider the possibility that they're looking at inaccurate or outdated information. (And that, too, is a bit of sloppiness, just like the person at your work who wrote it down wrong.)

It doesn't appear to be a matter of education or training, but it seems more a matter of sloppy work habits, just a general lackadaisical, careless approach to things.

I'm not saying that I'm perfect, and I know that to err is human.

But there are some people who seem to make these kinds of incredibly bad judgments. And then there are those who seem to make far more mistakes or oftentimes seem like a walking disaster. I just can't understand what it is; not everyone is a chronic screw-up, but then there are those who just can't seem to help themselves.

efd6c91f45f956682ef4fbb4b9e57453.jpg
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Right. All of our processes - especially ones in emergency situations - should take into account that humans are both fallible and fragile, and address this as much as possible.

Police sometimes make fatal mistakes, but this can be addressed in a number of ways.

Sometimes, it might even be possible to remove the police officer from the dangerous situation - and therefore many risks to the police officer and the citizen - altogether. For instance, if you use photo radar for speed enforcement instead of a cop in a patrol car, suddenly:

- the cop isn't at risk from an attacker in the pulled-over car or of being hit by other vehicles while they're vulnerable.
- the citizen isn't at risk of being the victim of a police shooting.
The biggest and most egregious mistakes I see with cops is that they have been taught to "take control" of the situation no matter what. So that when they perceive they are not in control, they needlessly escalate, by shouting, and then often with violence, because that's what they've been taught. They need to be trained to differentiate between a real threat, and someone blowing off steam until they tire, and are able to calm down.
 
Top