I donât find said data convincing re. CFAR, for reasons I fear youâve heard me rehearse ad nauseum. But this is less relevant: if it were just âCFAR, as an intervention, sucksâ Iâd figure (and have figured over the last decade) that folks donât need me to make up their own mind. The worst case, if that was true, is wasting some money and a few days of their time.
The doctor case was meant to illustrate that sufficiently consequential screw-ups in an activity can warrant disqualification from doing it againâeven if one is candid and contrite about them. I agree activities vary in the prevalence of their âfailure intolerableâ tasks (medicine and aviation have a lot, creating a movie or a company very few). But most jobs which involve working with others have some things for which failure tolerance is ~zero, and these typically involve safety and safeguarding. For example, a teacher who messes up their lesson plans obviously shouldnât be banned from their profession as a first resort; yet disqualification looks facially appropriate for one who allows their TA to try and abscond with one of their students on a field trip.
CFARâs track record includes a litany of awful mistakes re. welfare and safeguarding where each taken alone would typically warrant suspension or disqualification, and in concert should guarantee the latter as it demonstratesârather than (e.g.) âgrave mistake which is an aberration from their usually excellent standardsââa pattern of gross negligence and utter corporate incompetence. Whatever degree of intermediate risk attending these workshops constitute is unwise to accept (or to encourage others accepting), given CFAR realising these risks is already well-established.
I donât find said data convincing re. CFAR, for reasons I fear youâve heard me rehearse ad nauseum. But this is less relevant: if it were just âCFAR, as an intervention, sucksâ Iâd figure (and have figured over the last decade) that folks donât need me to make up their own mind. The worst case, if that was true, is wasting some money and a few days of their time.
The doctor case was meant to illustrate that sufficiently consequential screw-ups in an activity can warrant disqualification from doing it againâeven if one is candid and contrite about them. I agree activities vary in the prevalence of their âfailure intolerableâ tasks (medicine and aviation have a lot, creating a movie or a company very few). But most jobs which involve working with others have some things for which failure tolerance is ~zero, and these typically involve safety and safeguarding. For example, a teacher who messes up their lesson plans obviously shouldnât be banned from their profession as a first resort; yet disqualification looks facially appropriate for one who allows their TA to try and abscond with one of their students on a field trip.
CFARâs track record includes a litany of awful mistakes re. welfare and safeguarding where each taken alone would typically warrant suspension or disqualification, and in concert should guarantee the latter as it demonstratesârather than (e.g.) âgrave mistake which is an aberration from their usually excellent standardsââa pattern of gross negligence and utter corporate incompetence. Whatever degree of intermediate risk attending these workshops constitute is unwise to accept (or to encourage others accepting), given CFAR realising these risks is already well-established.