One of the best books I have read on addiction is by Gabor Mate (2008) In the Realm of The Hungry Ghosts. Of course, there are many other sources that help explain the psychology of addiction but Mate is particularly helpful in situating addiction in social context. The idea that addiction is a brain-problem and not a social/communal reality is nonsense.
There is a great deal of mythology around the issue of addiction and again Mate (2022) in his recent book, The Myth of Normal tackles this well.
One of the dominant myths associated with addiction is the myth of choice. (Remember, a myth is not a fairy tale but rather a created reality confirmed in symbol and ritual).
Svanberg (2018 – The Psychology of Addiction), is also helpful in de-mythologizing many myths about addiction.
The same myth of choice dominates the safety industry in the dumb mantra ‘safety is a choice you make’ (https://safetyrisk.net/is-safety-a-choice-you-make/). Silly, dangerous and harmful mantras such as this (https://safetyrisk.net/why-safety-isnt-a-choice-you-make/ ) dominate the Discourse of safety and hold it back from ever becoming professional. These mantras are so naïve and are often a con (https://safetyrisk.net/theres-no-other-place-like-safety-for-a-good-con/). This is also like other simplistic mantras that dominate the industry eg. ‘all accidents are preventable’. I’d love to see if any organisation promoting this kind of nonsense still purchases insurance?
One of the drivers of addiction is the need for comfort, security, certainty and belonging and, it doesn’t matter what the addiction is. I have seen many addicted to the ideology of zero (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/zero-the-great-safety-delusion/) even though it doesn’t work. In the face of fallibility (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/fallibility-risk-living-uncertainty/), there is perhaps no greater delusion in the safety industry.
If however, you know that humans are fallible, vulnerable and mortal, then you make sure you don’t speak nonsense to people (https://safetyrisk.net/believe-the-impossible-and-speak-nonsense-to-people/; https://safetyrisk.net/safety-experts-in-speaking-nonsense-to-people/).
One of the drivers of zero ideology is the myth of certainty and this is evidenced in the most popular language of safety – ‘hazards’ and ‘controls’. Of course, the very word ‘risk’ invokes the reality of uncertainty. A little read of Radical Uncertainty (https://safetyrisk.net/radical-uncertainty/) might help dispel this safety delusion.
Being able accept uncertainty and fallibility is essential to being real in risk (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/real-risk/). Knowing that there is no certainty in risk is foundational to connection with real people and to the realities of not knowing.
I read recently about Internet addiction and in particular tiktok addiction. This is a fascinating expose of the harm of this addiction. The trouble is, when you are seduced by the nonsense counting of injury rates and the delusion of zero, you only count harm that is visible and countable. Zero harm is never about real harm but selective harm (https://safetyrisk.net/selective-and-slow-harm-is-not-zero-harm/). When will Safety discover that zero is: anti-learning, anti-human and unethical?
Safety is only good at counting what it wants, NOT counting what counts.
Despite all the addiction to measurement in safety (https://safetyrisk.net/the-measurement-mindset-in-safety/) and its addiction to Quanta (https://safetydifferently.com/todd-conklin-quanta-risk-and-safety-conference-2019/) and ‘performance’, there is no comprehension of the semiotics of performance (https://safetyrisk.net/what-do-you-mean-by-performance/). The closed language of ‘performance’ is typical safety toxicity (https://safetyrisk.net/what-do-you-mean-by-performance/) and code (https://safetyrisk.net/deciphering-safety-code/) for dehumanising strategies. You can’t have a ‘new view’ using the same systems.
There is no certainty in measurement or data in safety either. Indeed, the approach of Safety to data is often unethical (https://safetyrisk.net/data-ethics-and-the-ethics-of-data-in-safety/). This is because safety is anchored to the promises of engineering and behaviourism that are simply more mythology. Bundle in the myth of swiss-cheese (https://safetyrisk.net/hopkins-dekker-on-reason-and-other-laughs/), James Reason or any other linear methodology and a dose of ‘confirmation bias’ and thou shalt be saved. Didn’t you know ‘safety saves’ (https://safetyrisk.net/creating-myths-and-rituals-in-safety/).
We see this ‘safety saves’ stuff sponsored by Safestart, has since morphed into ‘habit safe’ and now ‘neuroscience safety’. Not bad from a source in chemical engineering.
Seeking certainty in any of this stuff is just more addiction, more myth and not supported by any research in neuroscience (https://safetyrisk.net/essential-readings-neuroscience-and-the-whole-person/)! And, its harmful, just as any delusion is. BTW, there is no such thing as ‘brain fog’ (https://safestart.com/news/how-to-clear-up-brain-fog-notes-from-a-frequent-flyer/). There are no ‘solutions’ in ‘brain safety’ and no such thing as ‘neuro-safety’ (https://www.stratleader.net/neurosafety). All of this is based on the myth and metaphor of the human brain-as-computer. Similarly, culture has little to do brain cognition. More hype, more marketing and more unreality.
However, if you engage with SPoR, what happens is the following:
- The first thing you learn to do is, drop the language of ‘controlling hazards’ to the language of ‘helping persons tackle risk’.
- Then you learn how to jettison the silly mantras, semiotics and ideology that promises certainty where there is none.
- From this foundation of un-learning we then move to learning how to engage real people in ethical reality with skills of engagement.
- In SPoR, you move from being Papersafe to visual-verbal methods (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/spor-and-semiotics/) that work.
- In SPoR, we move away from the addiction of false promises of certainty and safety myths to a reality that embraces persons in care, helping and learning.
All of this is practical, doable, constructive and it works! (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/it-works-a-new-approach-to-risk-and-safety-book-for-free-download/)
All it takes is, a jump out of the safety worldview to consider another worldview (https://safetyrisk.net/stepping-outside-your-worldview-take-a-risk/).
If making such a jump is of interest, you don’t have to make it on your own. There are a host of people across the globe to offer support and coaching.
If you are so inclined, you can even come to the conference scheduled for 13-17 May in Canberra (https://spor.com.au/canberra-convention/) where you will meet people from across the globe practicing SPoR in their work.
Dr Rob Long
Latest posts by Dr Rob Long (see all)
- Safety sexism and misogyny looking for a scapegoat - October 11, 2024
- Framing and Priming Investigations, The Manawanui Tragedy - October 10, 2024
- HOP is Traditional Safety - October 9, 2024
- Defining Safety by the Absence of Accidents, Injury and Harm - October 9, 2024
- Visual and Verbal Mapping of Risk in SPoR - October 7, 2024
Brian says
Rob, I love your comment on whether companies having a zero harm approach take out insurance
Rob Long says
Of course they don’t Brian, because they don’t really believe in it, they know that people are fallible and in the end its just spin.