<p>The barcode on the package from the deli sticks to other items and gets slightly ripped. I then spend a lot of time at the checkout entering the barcode and entering it incorrectly.</p>

<p>I can't find 'Lebanese cucumbers' in the self checkout. Should I look for cucumber or Lebanese. It's under L, but listed, 'Cucumber Lebanese'.</p>

<p>There are some things which I hadn't thought about. There are others where there may be a limitation in my perception. You could take this a step further and think about the people designing these products/systems. They didn't think about what can go wrong.</p>

<p>In every activity, there are thousands of things which can go wrong. However, we rarely stop to consider the contingencies.</p>

<p>Has this idea been considered in psychology? I am interested in references. Feel free to offer your opinion.</p>

<p>If you think the following is more relevant, can you provide any discussion/references:</p>

<ul>
<li>We do consider contingencies all the time.  </li>
<li>Things don't go wrong.</li>
</ul>

<p>(Note that I can provide published counter examples for both these items.)</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-11-10T20:55:15.273Z
Welcome. We are not a forum for discussion. We encourage targeted questions that can be answered using the scientific literature. As of now you're explicitly inviting for opinion and discussion, which makes the question off-topic. Reference requests are OK, but as of now the question is quite open-ended: *there are thousands of things which can go wrong - Has this idea been considered in psychology?* is too vague imo.
AliceD
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-11-11T02:22:21.470Z
I agree with AliceD's concerns, but I think you do have a good question-in-the-making here. Maybe you can adjust it by asking if there is an accepted term, a metric, or even a class of experiments that address "contingency formulation" or "causation hypothesizing" or even "what if-ing". I've wondered about this myself.
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-11-17T00:15:08.627Z
@uhoh I don't really have a background in psychology, so not sure if I can use a common term/metric.  The more I think of it, I don't think we think of contingencies in every activity, since that would paralyze progress. I think we deliberate about contingencies when we perceive a risk.  When I bite into my burger, a tiny bone particle lodges between two teeth. I couldn't have thought about it.  If I did I would stop at every bite.  I am not sure if this is philosophy or psychology.  However, I wanted to see if this idea is known/discussed.
nilanjan
<human-error>
What prevents us from asking, 'What don't I know'?
nilanjan
# What prevents us from asking, 'What don't I know'?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-11-10)

The barcode on the package from the deli sticks to other items and gets slightly ripped. I then spend a lot of time at the checkout entering the barcode and entering it incorrectly.

I can't find 'Lebanese cucumbers' in the self checkout. Should I look for cucumber or Lebanese. It's under L, but listed, 'Cucumber Lebanese'.

There are some things which I hadn't thought about. There are others where there may be a limitation in my perception. You could take this a step further and think about the people designing these products/systems. They didn't think about what can go wrong.

In every activity, there are thousands of things which can go wrong. However, we rarely stop to consider the contingencies.

Has this idea been considered in psychology? I am interested in references. Feel free to offer your opinion.

If you think the following is more relevant, can you provide any discussion/references:

* We do consider contingencies all the time.
* Things don't go wrong.

(Note that I can provide published counter examples for both these items.)

**Tags:** human-error

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Welcome. We are not a forum for discussion. We encourage targeted questions that can be answered using the scientific literature. As of now you're explicitly inviting for opinion and discussion, which makes the question off-topic. Reference requests are OK, but as of now the question is quite open-ended: *there are thousands of things which can go wrong - Has this idea been considered in psychology?* is too vague imo.  
> **username_2**: I agree with username_1's concerns, but I think you do have a good question-in-the-making here. Maybe you can adjust it by asking if there is an accepted term, a metric, or even a class of experiments that address "contingency formulation" or "causation hypothesizing" or even "what if-ing". I've wondered about this myself.  
> **username_0**: @username_2 I don't really have a background in psychology, so not sure if I can use a common term/metric.  The more I think of it, I don't think we think of contingencies in every activity, since that would paralyze progress. I think we deliberate about contingencies when we perceive a risk.  When I bite into my burger, a tiny bone particle lodges between two teeth. I couldn't have thought about it.  If I did I would stop at every bite.  I am not sure if this is philosophy or psychology.  However, I wanted to see if this idea is known/discussed.  

---

## 0 answers

