Errors happen a lot. They happen when you do difficult things. They happen rarely when you’re really good at something. If you don’t run into any errors then I don’t think there’s a chance to improve that and yourself.
If you investigate the error then you may find the cause. Is that different than investigating the cause of the error?
Errors have a cause that could be investigated. That’s like being a detective and finding who was the killer. They find stuff out through clues and get to the bottom of things.
What does the cause of an error look like? Is it an idea? Is it a policy? How do you know something was the cause vs. just something that resulted? You gotta have reasons for that. I think looking up what the definition of cause would be good here.
You could change how a plan or action happens so you don’t run into the error. What’s being discussed in the quote above looks different tho.
There’s a cause that makes other errors happen not just one error. Also, you can make more than one change. It’s not just one change to prevent the errors from the same underlying cause.
You could make changes to the errors I think or you could make changes to the underlying cause. The latter sounds like less work. It may be more work to investigate the cause, but it’s more worth it.
Here’s part of my response from last time:
I think I got the wrong idea about what “prevent” means. I got a bad connotation of the word. That or I got the wrong meaning of it. You’d still want to accomplish your goal, you wouldn’t just completely give up. Now tho I think you could also think about many clear goals to choose a goal that doesn’t fail at the same error.