[akira2501]

> Now, every issue with a Boeing plane will be noticed, reported on and magnified.

It is a safety critical industry. Did you expect something different? Would we be "better served" by acting differently?

The goal of someone flying is to get there alive, not win the war against bias.

[filleduchaos]

> Would we be "better served" by acting differently?

We would be "better served" by actually scrutinizing [all] the parties that need scrutinizing, not latching on to one scapegoat out of fear and sensationalism as opposed to actual safety consciousness.

Pearl-clutching at Boeing about an aircraft the company delivered in the _1990s_ does absolutely nothing to "get [someone] there alive". Where is your outrage at e.g. Delta for flying a 30+ year old plane that has clearly been poorly inspected/maintained?

[bequanna]

The tone of your comment confuses me. I didn’t say it was a bad thing at all.

[akira2501]

I was reacting to the suggestion that people will only react to this out of misplaced "confirmation bias." Your statement was qualified as "it's not _necessarily_ bad."

The suggestion is that a negative or useless human emotion may, in this case, be incidentally useful.

My suggestion is that it is not at all useless or negative, and due to the safety factors involved, this is more due to survival bias than confirmation bias.

I sort of felt you were punching down into the public crowd gathered around this issue, and I took some umbrage with that.

[sramsay]

LOL. Requesting permission to use the phrase "the goal is not to win the war against bias" in future, highly relevant situations. ;)