Those of' Safety Differently are saying we need to look at what is working instead of what is not working/failed, they say if we focus on what is working, we will have a 'better' understanding of how things work 99% of the time. That does sound pretty cool/marketable, and one can easy fall for it, but it's naive and untrue and people will fall for it as they fail to consider logic. I have said before, all things remain robust until they fail, learning why it failed makes a thing robust again...it cyclical and progressive. Here is point made by Todd Conklin (who says this point is 'esoteric' in that is intended to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest)....so he obviously puts himself into a high level of superiority like the rest selling SD, like sitting in first class makes one put down flight attendants..kinda like not parking right..back at you Todd!!). Todd says - "We can't study what failed in order to explain what worked, we have to study what works in order to determine what can fail" If Todd ever had the balls, I love to debate this, but as he only surrounds himself with those who agree with him; what a sad world that is! SC - success is given via failures...period!