Engineering-infused approaches to analyzing disasters are interesting, but imho, miss a lot. They frequently land on explanations like, "people don't voice dissenting opinions."
Ok, well, modern theories about how and WHY dissenting opinions do get voiced from inside of groups is more complex than that. I am tired of "groupthink" explanations that don't incorporate key features of the environment, and yeah, that includes being real about the disasters we're analyzing when they're white & male
Sometimes these pieces seem to land on a model of human sociality that is fundamentally about unconscious impulses driving us into irrational behavior. That's old school and contradicted by more sophisticated social cognition work.
Explanations are incomplete when they don't push us to think, what are groups and environment*person interactions that DO create the conditions for meaningful dissent? Why do they happen in some places and not others? Your answer can't just be "people are bad"
@grimalkina Should you need some light reading, you might enjoy an ethnographic account of an absolutely terrible (but Boat Race-winning) Cambridge rowing crew.
Warning: I have nerdsniped multiple social scientists who row with this paper.
http://bionics.seas.ucla.edu/education/Rowing/Training_2011_05.pdf
Cat Hicks
Thomas Depierre
Yvonne Lam