I started reading a book at one point with a startling thesis. The contention was that often the most highly trained people do not perform as expected in crisis or survival situations.

In some cases less trained or untrained people did better and survived.

I never finished the book and now I can't remember the title or author, just the general thesis.

Anyone familiar with this book?

Not a clue but now I'm curious, that's an interesting conclusion.

Sounds like "Deep Survival", Laurence Gonzales.
If so, its a good read.

quote:

Originally posted by Anubismp:
Not a clue but now I'm curious, that's an interesting conclusion.

I don't have a clue either, but I think it is an absolutely absurd conclusion.

I’m with balze. Aviator by trade, can’t imagine the scenario where that works out as the book seems to think. In fact most crashes are by under trained, under experienced pilots. Seems like a faulty premise to begin with.

The book I referenced is more a series of case studies. An attempt to understand why some people survived catastrophic events and some didn't. He goes into how the mind works and perceives and processes information under stress.
Offers a number of suggestions, I don't have the book any more, I passed it on to a friend who was going through some things but a few I recall...
Positive mental attitude, Be here now (ability to see the situation as it actually is, not how you expect it to be), Have a plan, but don't fall in love with the plan(Recognize when the situation has changed and adapt the plan, be flexible), Do the next right thing (Break it down to a series of steps, prioritize, and focus on the immediate).

There is more, but that's what comes to mind. If not the book the OP is looking for, still a good read.

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
I’m with balze. Aviator by trade, can’t imagine the scenario where that works out as the book seems to think. In fact most crashes are by under trained, under experienced pilots. Seems like a faulty premise to begin with.

Not arguing the point as I'm sure there is data out there supporting it, but I've been on more than one IP/SP/IE type check ride where some stupid shit has happened.
IP = Instructor Pilot
SP = Standardization Pilot (typically the senior IP)
IE = Instrument Examiner (along for flight evaluation of pilot's instrument flying ability)

This was in UH-60's and I was the crew chief.

In fact, Flight Fax (Army safety publication) is full of high time crews screwing up. Complacency is usually the culprit.

Sorry for the thread derail, back to your originally scheduled program...

I think you just don't know how someone will react to a given situation until they are actually in it. The real pressures of the moment.

Sure, training makes a big difference, but until the time comes you just don't know.

The problem with the premise is in the definition of the terms. What is "often", what is "highly trained", and what are the expectations? Not trying to argue semantics, just observing the subjectivity of the wording.

And, of course, I just typed all this up and have no idea as to what the book title is, or whom the author might be. Sorry.

“normal accidents”. ?

Normal Accidents analyzes the social side of technological risk. Charles Perrow argues that the conventional engineering approach to ensuring safety--building in more warnings and safeguards--fails because systems complexity makes failures inevitable. He asserts that typical precautions, by adding to complexity, may help create new categories of accidents. (At Chernobyl, tests of a new safety system helped produce the meltdown and subsequent fire.) By recognizing two dimensions of risk--complex versus linear interactions, and tight versus loose coupling--this book provides a powerful framework for analyzing risks and the organizations that insist we run them.


The first edition fulfilled one reviewer's prediction that it "may mark the beginning of accident research." In the new afterword to this edition Perrow reviews the extensive work on the major accidents of the last fifteen years, including Bhopal, Chernobyl, and the Challenger disaster. The new postscript probes what the author considers to be the "quintessential 'Normal Accident'" of our time: the Y2K computer problem.


https://www.amazon.com/Normal-...c%2Caps%2C172&sr=8-1

quote:

I started reading a book at one point with a startling thesis. The contention was that often the most highly trained people do not perform as expected in crisis or survival situations.

^^^^^^^^
Hypothetically I can see this. Not as a ship captain or pilot. Sometimes the best plans do not work due to some fluke. I can imagine it is similar to thinking outside the box. This sort of think happens in sports all the time. It is one of the reasons we watch. For the most part,however, training pays off.

I don't think it's the book you're thinking of, but a few years I read a somewhat similar book.

It was about how people react to disasters and catastrophes: some keep their heads and survive, some freeze or panic and die.

The book was: The Unthinkable : Who Survives When Disaster Strikes - And Why by Amanda Ripley (Amazon link)

quote:

Originally posted by CoolRich59:
The book was: The Unthinkable : Who Survives When Disaster Strikes - And Why by Amanda Ripley

Even though I haven’t yet read it, that was also the book that occurred to me. It’s been highly recommended by an emergency manager friend who has read it several times, and I just ordered it from Amazon (finally).

Another good book in that subject could be, The Peter Principal, by Dr. Laurence Peter. He basically states,”anyone who continues to seek promotion will in time reach his or her level of incompetence.” It makes an interesting read.

Boyd -- fantastic book and I believe it fits your search criteria.

Tinyman

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by Anubismp:
Not a clue but now I'm curious, that's an interesting conclusion.

I don't have a clue either, but I think it is an absolutely absurd conclusion.

agree. would be contrary to anything I have ever witnessed (military / civilian / etc...)

of course one could cherry pick anecdotes

----------------------

Yes, of course accidents happen with well trained crews. But your entire point ignores that waaaay more accidents happen with badly trained ones. Go check out third world accidents. They are comically bad and leave you shaking your head.

In a true survival scenario will to survive with just enough knowledge to avoid stupid life ending mistakes is probably a good combo.

Part of the idea was that the more highly trained may by overwhelmed with assigning values to soo... many variables...
That the Just do it !! gets it done.
Or after they have been tested.

quote:

Sounds like "Deep Survival", Laurence Gonzales.
If so, its a good read.

Definitely this.

I remember thinking that some of the science was misrepresented when I read it years ago, but I've carried other lessons with me. I recommend reading it.

Daniel

I have read Deep Survival too. Very good book and worth a read.