Pe te r N. Ste in Jo hnso n Co ntro ls, I nc . F lig ht Sa fe ty F o unda tio n
Go o d Mo rning “T he future b e lo ng s to tho se who pre pa re fo r it to da y” Quo te : Ma lc o lm X
K no wle dg e vs. Skills SMS I CAO no wle dg e ≠ Critical Thinking E xpe rt K
K no wle dg e vs. Critic a l T hinking Critic a l K no wle dg e T hinking • Co nc e pts • Pro b le m So lving • Princ iple s • E va lua tio n • I nfo rma tio n • Re a so ning
Critic a l T hinking – Pre do mina nt No tio n Ab ility to mo nito r a nd e va lua te yo ur o wn thinking “T hinking Ab o ut Yo ur T hinking ”
Critic a lly T hinking ? Do yo u a c c e pt sta te me nts F a c t-finding a t fa c e -va lue ? Do yo u re ly o n yo ur Risk Asse ssme nt intuitio n? Do yo u de live r with Co rre c tive e mo tio n a nd a utho rity? Ac tio ns
Co re Pro c e ss: I nc ide nts & Ha za rds Inv e stig a tio n Ana lysis Advic e
nve stig a tio n I
Hypo the tic a l: Sa fe ty Re po rt “the a irc ra ft struc k a de e r during la nding ro llo ut” Safety Report “if the a irpo rt ha d fe nc ing , the inc ide nt wo uld no t ha ve ha ppe ne d”
I nve stig a tio n – Prima ry Go a l So und fa c tua l re c o rd b a se d o n re po rts, inte rvie ws, do c ume nts, da ta , a nd o b se rva tio n K e y Cha lle ng e s
F a c t o r Opinio n? F ACT Ob je c tive ly “T he a irc ra ft ve rifia b le e ve nt o r struc k a de e r thing during la nding ro llo ut” OPI NI ON A judg me nt – ma y “if the a irpo rt o r ma y no t b e ha d fe nc ing , b a se d o n fa c t o r the inc ide nt kno wle dg e wo uld no t ha ve ha ppe ne d”
He a rsa y - “Wo rd o f Mo uth” Bob T o m • Bo b ’ s “T ruth” o r fa c t • Me mo ry • Pe rc e ptio n • I nte rna l Bia s Unre lia b le
He a rsa y – Hypo the tic a l Sa fe ty Re po rt “there are lots of “Tom said lots ST AT E ME NT S: animals near the of animals are VE RI F I ABL E ? airport” crossing the CRE DI BL E ? runway every day” Source? Hearsay T o m Bo b
E ye witne ss Sta te me nts “I swe a r - it’ s a fa c t - I sa w the a nima ls c ro ss the runwa y with my o wn two e ye s”
I nno c e nc e Pro je c t “E ye witne ss miside ntific a tio n is the sing le g re a te st c a use o f wro ng ful c o nvic tio ns [in the Unite d Sta te s], pla ying a ro le in ne a rly 75% o f c o nvic tio ns o ve rturne d thro ug h DNA te sting .” So urc e : www.inno c e nc e pro je c t.o rg / unde rsta nd/ E ye witne ss-Miside ntific a tio n.php
E ye witne ss Sta te me nts – Unre lia b le ? Me mo ry ≠ Tape Recorder I mpa c t F a c to rs • L ig hting • Dista nc e • Stre ss • Ob se rve r’ s Ag e • T ime L a pse So urc e : www.inno c e nc e pro je c t.o rg / unde rsta nd/ E ye witne ss-Miside ntific a tio n.php
I nve stig a tio n - T a ke a wa ys • F a c ts no t o pinio ns o r c o nje c ture • Ob je c tive • Ve rifia b le • Se nsitive to the pro b le m with He a rsa y • Writte n • Spo ke n • E ye witne ss sta te me nts ma y no t a lwa ys b e re lia b le • I nde pe nde nt ve rific a tio n • Co nside r impa c t fa c to rs (e .g . dista nc e )
Ana lysis
Ana lysis – Prima ry Go a l • Asse ss Risk • De te rmine Ca usa tio n T ra ining * E xpe rie nc e * I ntuitio n K e y Cha lle ng e
I ntuitive vs. Ra tio na l (Critic a l) T hinking • Sub je c tive , fe e ling , e xpe rie nc e 90% ?? • “Go ing with yo ur g ut” I ntuitive • F a st, b ut no t fla wle ss • Co nside r o ptio ns, we ig h c ho ic e s • L o g ic a l a lte rna tive s Ra tio na l • Slo we r, me tho dic a l
Ava ila b ility Bia s • Pro b a b ility o f a n o c c urre nc e is de te rmine d b y the e a se o f re c a ll • E a se o f Re c a ll – Prima c y & Re c e nc y – Sa lie nc e o r Vividne ss • Sta te d a no the r wa y: – “te nde nc y to fo rm a judg me nt fro m wha t re a dily c o me s to mind”
Ava ila b ility Bia s - E xa mple s “I think it’ s sa fe r if we drive inste a d o f flying ” “De lta Airline s is a lwa ys la te ”
Ava ila b ility Bia s – Why I mpo rta nt? Risk = Se ve rity x Pro b a b ility E ASY DAT A RE CAL L Miscalculate risk and recommend either an inadequate or incorrect mitigation
Co nfirma tio n Bia s • Se le c tive ly c o nside ring e vide nc e to suppo rt o ne ’ s pre c o nc e ive d c o nc lusio n • Sta te d Diffe re ntly: • L o o king fo r info rma tio n tha t c o nfirms o ur b e lie fs a nd ig no re info rma tio n tha t is c o ntra ry to tha t b e lie f
Co nfirma tio n Bia s - E xa mple s “Alie ns fro m o the r pla ne ts ha ve visite d the E a rth” No vic e Ac c ide nt I nve stig a to rs
Co nfirma tio n Bia s – Why I mpo rta nt? Ca usa tio n De te rmina tio n: • Hig h pro b a b ility • Ob je c tive fa c ts • Ra tio na l Ana lysis CONF I RM CONT RADI CT • I nc o rre c t o r ine ffe c tive mitig a tio n • Ove rc o nfide nc e
Ove rc o nfide nc e • T e nde nc y to b e mo re c o nfide nt in yo ur sub je c tive judg me nt a b o ut future e ve nts tha n wa rra nte d b y the fa c ts • Sta te d Diffe re ntly: • I ndividua l a sse ssme nts trump the o ve ra ll b a se ra te • Pre fe r the “inside ” vie w vs. o utside sta tistic a l vie w
Ove rc o nfide nc e - E xa mple s E ntre pre ne urs & I nve sto rs Unsta b le Appro a c he s & Go -Aro und De c isio ns
Ove rc o nfide nc e – Why I mpo rta nt? • Ove re stima te Ove rc o nfide nc e K no wle dg e • Unde re stima te Risk SUBJE CT I VE • E xa g g e ra te Ab ility ST AT I ST I CS BE L I E F S * I na ppro pria te , inc o rre c t, o r ine ffe c tive mitig a tio n stra te g y
I nte rna l Bia se s – F ixe s • Se e k o ut e vide nc e tha t c o ntra dic ts yo ur vie w • Ask q ue stio ns tha t c ha lle ng e yo ur c o nc lusio ns • Se e k o ut pe o ple a nd pub lic a tio ns tha t o ffe r diffe re nt vie ws • Pa y a tte ntio n to b a se ra te s • K e e p a n o pe n mind to ne w po ssib ilitie s
Advic e
Advic e – Prima ry Go a l • Cle a r, Pre c ise L a ng ua g e • So und, L o g ic a l Re a so ning K e y Cha lle ng e s
Advic e = Arg ume nt • Pe rsua sio n b a se d o n so und re a so ning a nd lo g ic • T ruthful c o nc lusio n flo ws fro m truthful pre mise s
L o g ic a l F a lla c ie s • E rro r in Re a so ning • De fe c t tha t we a ke ns yo ur a rg ume nt • Ve ry c o mmo n • Ca n b e ve ry pe rsua sive
Appe a l to E mo tio n “L e g a l “I f we do n’ t insta ll “Unsa fe !” L ia b ility!” synthe tic visio n, o ur o pe ra tio n wo n’ t b e sa fe !” Atte mpt to pe rsua de tha t c o nc lusio n is va lid b a se d o n e mo tio n a nd no t re a so ning
Appe a l to Autho rity Re lying o n a n a utho rity who is no t re a lly a n a utho rity o n the sub je c t ma tte r o f the a rg ume nt “T he “Our CE O Re g ula to r a g re e s a g re e s … with …
Use o f L a ng ua g e – Writte n o r Spo ke n • E xe c utive s, Ope ra tio ns Audie nc e • Re g ula to rs, L a wye rs • Sta te me nt susc e ptib le o f Amb ig uity two me a ning s • Co nte xt se nsitive • Ove rly b ro a d, unc le a r Va g ue ne ss • Co ve r-up fo r la c k o f fa c ts o r a rg ume nta tive stre ng th
Advic e – T ips • L o g ic a nd so und re a so ning • Suppo rte d with o b je c tive a nd ve rifia b le fa c ts • Pre c ise , c le a r la ng ua g e – writte n o r spo ke n • Do c ume nts we ll o rg a nize d • Co nside r a udie nc e a nd c o nte xt
Critic a l T hinking – I n Sum Do n’ t a c c e pt sta te me nts I nve stig a tio n a t fa c e -va lue . Do n’ t re ly so le ly o n yo ur Ana lysis e xpe rie nc e & intuitio n. Ba se d o n so und re a so ning a nd no t Advic e e mo tio n o r a utho rity.
Pe te r N. Ste in Jo hnso n Co ntro ls, I nc . F lig ht Sa fe ty F o unda tio n pe te r.n.ste in@ jc i.c o m ste infly@ me .c o m
Recommend
More recommend