The foundation of the Bradley Curve is that humans have a ‘natural instinct’ to harm.
Only Safety could project something so false and still believe it.
The opposite is the case.
We all know ‘instinct’ as an innate disposition. It’s how all animals are ‘hard wired’. The genome whether in a snake, rabbit or worm has a natural energy to survive, sustain life and adapt to any threats. This energy and ‘drive’ are called ‘Allostasis’ (https://safetyrisk.net/allostasis-and-homeostasis-in-risk/ )
The idea that any animal has a ‘natural instinct’ to harm is so stupid that it is a wonder that Safety can continue to push this lie and people believe it.
In Canberra, we have a regulation that cats are not allowed outside of homes (https://www.cmtedd.act.gov.au/open_government/inform/act_government_media_releases/chris-steel-mla-media-releases/2022/new-cat-laws-to-protect-pets-and-native-wildlife). Why? Because cats have a ‘natural instinct’ to kill birds and native species. It’s what cats do.
We also have swooping magpies in nesting season (https://citynews.com.au/2024/get-ready-why-magpies-swoop-in-spring/) and we know it’s the ‘natural instinct’ of the magpie to protect their nest. It’s what magpies do.
All animals (including humans) carry DNA code that hard wires them to sustain life, respond to threats of harm and to protect themselves. Only Safety could believe the opposite.
Humans do not seek to harm themselves. When we do harm ourselves we call that an ‘accident’
We call it an ‘accident’ because there is no ‘natural instinct’ to harm in humans. It is the opposite.
Indeed, if a person has an instinct to harm, we seek counselling because self-harm is considered a mental health condition (https://toolkit.lifeline.org.au/topics/self-harm/support-services-for-self-harm ).
So, why does safety believe such nonsense? (https://www.safetyqube.com/post/safety-culture-maturity-where-are-you-on-the-curve). It’s part of Safety mythology. Safety wants it to be true and makes it symbolically true (using the symbol of the Bradley Curve), so that it can maintain its belief in zero.
This is the same as believing that DuPont is a good safety company, when it is not. The opposite is true (https://safetyrisk.net/dark-waters-the-true-story-of-dupont-and-zero/). The projection that DuPont are a safety company is pure mythology.
All of this nonsense about ‘natural instinct’ to harm is not supported by any evidence. All the evidence demonstrates that humans have a ‘natural instinct’ to NOT harm.
This myth of ‘natural instinct’ to harm is maintained through safety indoctrination, myth and propaganda. None of it is true. All myth is maintained as true by semiotic/symbols. This is what the curve does, as if it proves a logic to itself but it is completely false.
All of this is part of safety disinformation. None of this has anything to do with ‘safety culture’! The lie that safety culture is measured by injury rates is also false. There is no relationship between injury rates and a demonstration of safety. Culture cannot be measured. Yet, Safety wants to also believe this lie.
This is how the nature of belief works (see Lipton, 2005, The Biology of Belief – https://nlpbi.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Bruce-Lipton-The-Biology-of-Belief.pdf). We know from the billions of people on the planet who hold to a religious faith, that you don’t need evidence to maintain a belief.
Safety simply demonstrates this to be true, when it comes to things like the Bradley Curve.
There is no evidence for a ‘natural instinct’ to harm. All the evidence demonstrates the opposite. But when it comes to zero, we know, ‘we believe’.
You can believe whatever myth you like, but it’s not true.
What is most dangerous is, building a methodology of safety culture on a lie and then acting upon it.
It is the same as building a cult on a slogan and then claiming that one somehow was doing something ‘different’.
We know about the nature of belief (https://safetyrisk.net/the-safety-belief-system/). We know why people believe what they want to believe. This is what we learn from Religious Studies.
What belief in the Bradley Curve demonstrates is that Safety is a religious belief system, not a science.
Dr Rob Long
Latest posts by Dr Rob Long (see all)
- No ‘Natural Instinct’ To Harm - November 5, 2024
- The False Claims of the Bradley Curve - November 4, 2024
- Unconscious Messaging and Zero Trust - November 4, 2024
- The Wisdom of Semiotics, Myth and Poetics in Risk - October 31, 2024
- Spot the Spin and the Myths of AI - October 28, 2024
Damien Francis Jameson says
Thanks Rob. This makes absolute sense. Can I ask your opinion on the often used variations on the phrase “He/She hurt themselves at work”? You yourself used a variation in this article saying “When we do harm ourselves we call it an accident”.
I don’t believe a worker sets out to “harm themselves” but rather the task or an element goes wrong and causes the harm.
Id like to know your thoughts.
Rob Long says
Hi Damien, the way we use language casually in safety is crazy. But no surprises there, safety says host of stupid things. Yes, ‘I hurt myself at work’ is a descriptive saying but doesn’t convey any sense of intent. There is no attribution of blame in such language unless one wants it to be so. The trouble is Safety doesn’t even believe in accidents because ‘safety is a choice you make’. Just one more of many false slogans that Safety wants to believe.