Frame and Reframe

By Frank Garrett

Recently I watched an episode of Criminal Minds the serial killer was caught because of a seven year old photo, of a crime scene, with a bottle of wine in the frame, the label turned perfectly to the camera.

Of course this was no ordinary bottle of wine, and the data in the electronic records database could identify which auction house sold it to which buyer seven years ago. The damsel in distress was saved, and society is now safe again.

Yes, it’s TV, the question is how much does it affect our unconsciousness and our aspirations to make everyone safe?

To solve the mystery with black and white solutions. We see it on LinkedIn all the time, a photo of a scene and all the hero investigators offer up their opinion on how safe it is or isn’t, what happened and what the solution is to save everyone from the perils illustrated in the photo.

All this without any context, connection to those involved, no curiosity just the usual compliance and regulation through telling, lecturing to espouse how smart they are.

We all seek that comfort feeling elicited by the conclusion of a Mayday episode, when the cause of the crash is identified, quantified, certified and all similar planes are grounded for repairs. Was that “the” cause, was it “a” cause? I don’t profess to know, I ask these questions to create cognitive dissonance, we take so much for granted, we accept so much in life as the truth to create comfort so we can move on with life.

Walter Lippmann said “Where all think alike, no one thinks very much” Critical thinking begins with good questions, but most people listen to respond not to be curious, not to understand, discern or connect.

There is nothing in the Safety & Health certification curriculums that touch on anthropology, philosophy, ontology, embodiment.

Why do you suppose that is?

When we study these we start to see our world views and how they change the lens we look through. Introducing a simple concept like dialectic to an investigation can change the direction. This is not saying the method used to investigate is wrong, it’s asking if there is more to consider, are there areas of the investigation that we may not have a black and white answers and corrective actions for? Do we understand human nature and the affinity to fill in the blanks with our own version when the information is incomplete?

Paradox is alive and well. We can be well trained and make a mistake, we can have knowledge and still use heuristics rather than going through the whole process of conscious thought. Unconsciously production is a driver at the same time we say don’t rush.  We expect a certain level of productivity from someone with years of experience, that means using heuristics, then when there is a misalignment of task and heuristic, we name, blame, shame and re-train.

The lens we look through to find the wine bottle label may not expose all that’s important, the focus on objects instead of relationships may not expose all that is important.

Are you the least bit curious about the methodology behind the method? Checklist and cascading tree models can only get us so far in the real world. We can show you more in Houston at the Three day SPoR session in May.

https://linktr.ee/SPoR.USA.may2025