But, this is not holistic. Neither is such a view supported by any evidence from neuroscience or neuropsychology. Indeed, much of what is packaged in safety is brain-centric is based on erroneous assumptions about human development.
The assumptions of brain-centrism drive an ethic that demonises the body and considers it secondary to the activity of the brain. This is not how we understand personhood in SPoR and, this puts SPoR in direct conflict with what Safety assumes about the nature of persons.
In the end, the test of any ethic is what actions do to persons. One can promote slogans, talk about ‘thought leaders’, concoct faux principles, or talk about a ‘different view’ but the test of any model as ethical is, what happens to persons. It also matters how one uses power.
The other approach in safety believes that poor decision making is the result of poor systems and so we get ‘human factors’ safety, HOP and ‘resilience engineering’ that endeavours to reconstruct the system to improve human decision making.
All of the criticism that is articulated on this blog site emerges from an ethic that cares about what Safety does to persons.
Brutalising people in the name of ‘safety’ or ‘zero’ is not ‘safe’. If Safety takes an action that causes psychosocial harm, then it’s not ‘safe’. The purpose of the critical analysis on this blog site is focused on improving risk and safety. At no time should people in safety defend a methodology that demonises or harms persons.
One of the foundations of SPoR is the concept of ‘One Brain Three Minds’ (1B3M). The Mind is NOT the brain and the brain is not the Mind. When we use the language of Mind in SPoR we refer to the whole person not the idea that a brain alone directs behaviours.
Such a view changes the whole way we approach decision making and judgement.
A great deal of research supports the idea that humans have one brain but three ‘minds’:
- https://news.ki.se/the-heart-has-its-own-brain
- https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gut-second-brain/
- https://neuroscience.ubc.ca/our-second-brain-more-than-a-gut-feeling/
- https://research.jefferson.edu/2022-magazine/the-hearts-little-brain.html
Indeed, we know that the endocrine, nervous and immune systems also operate independently of direction from the brain. In SPoR, we agree with Claxton (Intelligence in the Flesh) that ‘the brain doesn’t issue commands but it rather hosts conversations’.
This is why in SPoR, we focus on the embodied person as Mind and this also changes one’s ethical approach to risk.
The methodology behind the SPoR iCue method (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/icue-engagement-manual/) comes from a belief in the human person as an embodied Mind. And this changes what one thinks safety is about.
It matters in safety where one thinks error comes from. You can run around as much as you want trying to ‘engineer’ resilient systems and make no difference to the way human persons make decisions. You can try and create systems to improve human safety ‘performance’ and yet, have no influence on the human or collective unconscious.
iCue is a visual verbal method of risk assessment (https://safetyrisk.net/icue-as-visual-verbal-risk-assessment-a-video/) that considers the embodied person phenomenologically (https://safetyrisk.net/phenomenology-the-lifeworld-and-the-illusion-of-objectivity-in-safety/). The method enables an approach to human decision making that is positive and holistic and it works (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/it-works-a-new-approach-to-risk-and-safety-book-for-free-download/).
The iCue method only works if one shifts one’s methodology towards personhood. iCue only works if one jettisons belief in zero and the propaganda of slogans. iCue works best when persons are place before the resilience of systems and the quest for safety. iCue works best when methodology and ethic changes. When this happens, a whole new approach to tackling risk is experienced by everyone on site and once experienced, people never look back.
Dr Rob Long
Latest posts by Dr Rob Long (see all)
- Making Sure There is No ‘Cultural Shift’ in Safety - January 14, 2025
- How to Make Ensure That People Don’t Speak Up - January 13, 2025
- It’s Not a Secret, We Just Don’t Talk About It - January 11, 2025
- Myth, Objectivity and the Subjectivity of Language in Safety - January 11, 2025
- There’s Nothing Better than a Blitz - January 11, 2025
Matt Thorne says
We have been working together for years now Rob, and you have always used Critical Theory with me and our clients.
If something can be made better, it needs to be deconstructed first, then put back to together in it’s improved form.
So often we Safety increasing the amount of checks, forms and inspections as an improvement. This is volume not and rarely people centric
With the personification of Safety abound in the industry, it is no wonder people get stuck in binary thinking.
Thanks for being my Critical Friend.
Rob Long says
No worries Matt. There are plenty of people know something is wrong but have no methodology or methods to improve things. There’s so much out there that is just more slogans and no method. Thanks goodness for SPoR that provides a methodology and methods that work.