There is nothing unique about human error but there is with the preoccupation of behaviourists about it. The latest dose by Cooper (https://safetyrisk.net/the-behaviourist-human-and-human-being/) that ignores all of the available Transdisciplinary research is typical.
What the behaviourist constructs as ‘human error’ ignores the real questions of: human being and the reality of fallibility, mortality, vulnerability and imperfection. Tackling these realities leads to an ethic of personhood, jettisoning the nonsense of zero (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/zero-the-great-safety-delusion/) and the development of real practical methods (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/spor-and-semiotics/) to tackle risk that work (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/it-works-a-new-approach-to-risk-and-safety-book-for-free-download/).
When you read any behaviourist stuff on error the first question that should be asked is about the silences in the text. What do behaviourists never talk about?
In the midst of all this technical and mechanical worldview of inputs and outputs, where is the discussion on consciousness? And with all these tables of classifications of error where is the human unconscious, heuristics, habit and non-coconscious decision making? Where is any discussion of the Collective Unconscious and the hundreds of social influences (https://safetyrisk.net/mapping-social-influence-strategies/ ) and cognitive biases (https://safetyrisk.net/20-cognitive-biases-that-affect-risk-decision-making/) that all run on auto-pilot? In the midst of all the deficit language about prediction, failure and violation, where is any discussion on the nature of fallible human ‘being’? Where is any discussion that gives consideration to the dozens of disciplines outside of the safety echo chamber (https://safetyrisk.net/echo-chambers-and-thinking-about-risk/) that rip to shreds the assumptions of Behaviourism?
Even when Behaviourism uses language of ‘attention failure’, ‘memory failure’ and the notion of ‘care’ they are never defined, because consciousness is of no interest. Indeed, behaviourism has no interest in human unconscious at all. Behaviourism has no idea what ‘attention failure’ is and so is projected as some kind of brain error that can be reprogrammed as if the brain is a computer, which it is not. Such a metaphor of the human brain as computer is completely out of touch with the reality of all the research (https://safetyrisk.net/the-behaviourist-human-and-human-being/ ) that demonstrates otherwise.
But for Behaviourism and Safety, such research gets in the way of its construct of humanity that suits its mechanical worldview and its idea of what error is. It’s much easier to hold on to this 1930s philosophy than connect with all of the Transdisciplinary research that rips it to shreds.
So, the result is a faux construct that justifies policing and the mythology of inputs and outputs projected on to the human person.
There are other worldviews that are much more positive, practical and constructive that work (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/it-works-a-new-approach-to-risk-and-safety-book-for-free-download/). These are as easy to know as a free download. Here you will read a case study of how a different approach to tackling risk works in a large global organisation.
The trouble is, all that has been invested in Behaviourism would be challenged if such an investigation and research were undertaken. So much would have to be unlearned if there was engagement with any view outside of Safety and its love for BBS and zero. It’s much safer and more comfortable to keep with head-in-sand-safety and throw projections based on ignorance so the status quo can be maintained.