Man Just Brought Gun Into Comet Ping Pong

[interchange]

If so and as such, it would seem to me that what drives interchange to work perfection isn't a fear of failure and loss of his job, but his love and actual real world commitment to people and furthermore a class of people who really deserve quality care.

I would die being seen by others as the biggest ass-hole in the world to protect people from the pain of this dynamic. I think I might be OK if even I only protected one person from it.

 

[Moonbeam]

I would die being seen by others as the biggest ass-hole in the world to protect people from the pain of this dynamic. I think I might be OK if even I only protected one person from it.

There are stories about a man rather untroubled by what people think called Mulla Nasrudin collected and published by a Sufi by the name of Idris Shah. Those stories and other of his work are available on Amizon, I believe as well as some excellent books for children. I believe their is knowledge to be had from those stories that is rather difficult to come by in general.

What you wish to do is to break through the veil of appearances and the assumptions about them that block a deeper seeing. The Mulla, in my opinion, is one way to help shed those filters.

One day Mulla Nasrudin rode into town sitting backward on his donkey. The villagers immediately asked him why he sat that way. He admonished them for their foolish assumption that it wasn't the donkey who was the wrong way round.

Once the Mulla used to regularly cross a border with a train of donkeys loaded down with piles of straw. When asked about his purpose in crossing he said he was a smuggler. So every time he crossed the guards would search the straw meticulously looking for contraband but they could never find anything. Years later one of the guards found the Mulla having tea in the marketplace and asked him what it was they could never find he was smuggling. He answered, donkeys.

 

[interchange]

Thanks @Moonbeam. I am still troubled by what other people think, but I'm trying hard to challenge why.

 

[Moonbeam]

Thanks @Moonbeam. I am still troubled by what other people think, but I'm trying hard to challenge why.

It was in one of those Shah books I mentioned, I can almost bet, I read this piece of information:

Try to please others and someone will be offended. Try to please yourself and somebody will be offended. That helped me to clarify my options.

 

[WelshBloke]

Exactly! The beatings will continue until moral improves.

Edit: Let me just add that as I understand interchange's situation is that he is a psychiatrist who works for the VA. If so and as such, it would seem to me that what drives interchange to work perfection isn't a fear of failure and loss of his job, but his love and actual real world commitment to people and furthermore a class of people who really deserve quality care. In my worthless opinion, the only morality that counts is not the morality that is driven by fear but the morality that comes from the love that can flower within.

So when you look at the world and say fuck up and you will be punished because that's how reality is, I would suggest you take a second look at that reality. I see one gigantically fucked up mess.

Thing is that results not intentions do matter.

Unless you really want a nice well meaning surgeon with the vision of Mr Magoo?

 

[interchange]

Thing is that results not intentions do matter.

Punishing mistakes does not lead to better results. It just makes you think you did something about it.

I should also clarify that my hierarchy is mistake, at risk behavior, and dangerous behavior. Some things should be punished.

 

[WelshBloke]

Punishing mistakes does not lead to better results.

Yes it does.

If Bob is a fucking awful surgeon that kills 90% of his patients then sacking Bob and employing a better surgeon leads to better results.

 

[interchange]

If Bob is a fucking awful surgeon that kills 90% of his patients then sacking Bob and employing a better surgeon leads to better results.

Letting Bob do surgery is not a mistake. It's knowingly dangerous. This is not a valid example.

 

[WelshBloke]

Letting Bob do surgery is not a mistake. It's knowingly dangerous. This is not a valid example.

So should Bob be punished by losing his job or carry on with his excellent survival results?

 

[interchange]

So should Bob be punished by losing his job or carry on with his excellent survival results?

When is it safe to wear white after labor day?

This question has as much relevance to whether we should punish mistakes as the one you've asked.

 

[WelshBloke]

When is it safe to wear white after labor day?

This question has as much relevance to whether we should punish mistakes as the one you've asked.

No it doesn't.

I'm asking a very specific question.

Should an appalling surgeon be punished by losing his job?

Follow up question. Would him being punished in that way be for the betterment of society?

 

[interchange]

No it doesn't.

I'm asking a very specific question.

Should an appalling surgeon be punished by losing his job?

Follow up question. Would him being punished in that way be for the betterment of society?

Either you are interested in understanding my argument or you are not. If you are not, then this is very sad.

 

[WelshBloke]

Either you are interested in understanding my argument or you are not. If you are not, then this is very sad.

Does understanding your argument involve agreeing with you?

 

[interchange]

Does understanding your argument involve agreeing with you?

It could, but only if you actually agree with me. If you are interested in actually discussing my point, you disagree with me, and you make a point that either helps me learn something new or otherwise think about what I know in a different way, then I will be thankful.

 

[WelshBloke]

It could, but only if you actually agree with me. If you are interested in actually discussing my point, you disagree with me, and you make a point that either helps me learn something new or otherwise think about what I know in a different way, then I will be thankful.

Well does your argument stand up to the questions I asked earlier?

 

[interchange]

Well does your argument stand up to the questions I asked earlier?

The questions you asked do not apply. The scenario you pose is not one of someone making a mistake. It is a scenario of someone knowingly engaging in frankly dangerous behavior.

I propose a function y = 1/x
You give me an input of x=0
x=0 is not valid input
This does not invalidate the equation for other inputs

 

[WelshBloke]

The questions you asked do not apply. The scenario you pose is not one of someone making a mistake. It is a scenario of someone knowingly engaging in frankly dangerous behavior.

No it isnt.

You're assuming that everyone that makes a mistake knows that they are going to make a mistake in the first place.

The surgeon in my example thinks that he is going to do a good job, he's just not self aware enough to see the problem. (For the record I have seen this to a lesser extent)

 

[interchange]

No it isnt.

I just have to laugh at the idea that I'm the one defining the equation, yet somehow you get to tell me the valid inputs to it?

You're assuming that everyone that makes a mistake knows that they are going to make a mistake in the first place.

The surgeon in my example thinks that he is going to do a good job, he's just not self aware enough to see the problem. (For the record I have seen this to a lesser extent)

The surgeon does not operate alone.

Aside from that, awareness of recklessness is not even required. Something that is reckless should not continue.

In any event, if you are interested, the model is called just culture. It was initially applied to the very dangerous aviation industry. And since has been applied many times in healthcare. A starting point here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3776518/#i1524-5012-13-3-400-b03

 

[Moonbeam]

Yes it does.

If Bob is a fucking awful surgeon that kills 90% of his patients then sacking Bob and employing a better surgeon leads to better results.

Surely you have this all wrong. Sacking such a surgeon would only protect the idiots who hired such an incompetent surgeon resulting in the likelihood that the next one will kill 95%. Then we will have to go after the people who hired them till we finally come round to your responsibility in all of this. And because we are going to have to subject you to the death penalty for your crime here, I'm betting my ass you won't any time soon be turning your sorry ass in. And don't forget that now that I know what a litigious and punitive bastard you are, when I find you gutted on the street, I'm leaving you to lie there gasping to keep my malpractice rates from soaring more than they have already.

 

[WelshBloke]

I just have to laugh at the idea that I'm the one defining the equation, yet somehow you get to tell me the valid inputs to it?

You're the one saying which questions we can ask or not.

The surgeon does not operate alone.

Aside from that, awareness of recklessness is not even required. Something that is reckless should not continue.

Indeed. There needs to be some sanction to stop it. Something that could, possibly, be called a punishment?

 

[WelshBloke]

Surely you have this all wrong. Sacking such a surgeon would only protect the idiots who hired such an incompetent surgeon...

I'll stop you there.

Sacking that surgeon would protect all the people that he would have operated on if he hadn't been sacked.

 

[interchange]

I will refer to my exact words in an earlier post, made before any of your questions were asked:

I should also clarify that my hierarchy is mistake, at risk behavior, and dangerous behavior. Some things should be punished.

Why do you refuse to attempt to understand what the definition of a mistake is as I have defined it?

 

[WelshBloke]

Why do you refuse to attempt to understand what the definition of a mistake is as I have defined it?

Well mainly because it doesn't really leave you with an argument.

If you're going to define a mistake as doing no harm then I'd agree with you, but then if theres no harm I'd argue that there wasn't a mistake.

 

[interchange]

Well mainly because it doesn't really leave you with an argument.

I said your example does not constitute a mistake. I don't recall you asking me for examples that would constitute a mistake.

And it is not something that does no harm. A mistake may or may not cause harm (just as reckless behavior might or might not). A mistake is an error that is not intended and does not represent inattention to or violation of rules, policy, law, etc.

Some examples:
A nurse is working in an ICU. They are ordered to give a medication. They get paged while they are preparing a medication and forget that they already administered a patient's heparin. They give them heparin again. This is a mistake.

A nurse is working in an ICU. The system is designed to give drugs one at a time to prevent errors by requiring that they scan the patient's wristband after each administration, and that's the official policy. This is tedious, so, instead, every nurse in the ICU when they have multiple medications to administer scans the med then the wristband for all the medicines at once and then administers all the meds. This is at-risk behavior.

A nurse is working in an ICU. The same system is in place. The nurse thinks the system is bullshit. The nurse works around it by taking the patient's wristband off and bringing it to the med room and doing all the scanning in the med room. Then the nurse keeps all the medication vials with them throughout the day and administers the meds without checking. This is reckless.

 

[WelshBloke]

I said your example does not constitute a mistake. I don't recall you asking me for examples that would constitute a mistake.

And it is not something that does no harm. A mistake may or may not cause harm (just as reckless behavior might or might not). A mistake is an error that is not intended and does not represent inattention to or violation of rules, policy, law, etc.

Some examples:
A nurse is working in an ICU. They are ordered to give a medication. They get paged while they are preparing a medication and forget that they already administered a patient's heparin. They give them heparin again. This is a mistake.

So we'll take your example.

If they do this 4 or 5 times on the trot do we just go "Oh! Thats just Phil he's got a crappy memory." and let him carry on killing patients? Or do we go "Yeah, Phil. We think that nursing might not be your thing. We're going to have to ask you to find something different."?

Do we punish Phil for the good of society? And would that be a good thing?