• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

SafetyRisk.net

Humanising Safety and Embracing Real Risk

  • Home
    • About
      • Privacy Policy
      • Contact
  • FREE
    • Slogans
      • Researchers Reveal the Top 10 Most Effective Safety Slogans Of All Time
      • When Slogans Don’t Work
      • CLASSIC, FAMOUS and INFAMOUS SAFETY QUOTES
      • 500 OF THE BEST WORKPLACE HEALTH and SAFETY SLOGANS 2023
      • CATCHY and FUNNY SAFETY SLOGANS FOR THE WORKPLACE
      • COVID-19 (Coronavirus, Omicron) Health and Safety Slogans and Quotes for the Workplace
      • Safety Acronyms
      • You know Where You Can Stick Your Safety Slogans
      • Sayings, Slogans, Aphorisms and the Discourse of Simple
      • Spanish Safety Slogans – Consignas de seguridad
      • Safety Slogans List
      • Road Safety Slogans 2023
      • How to write your own safety slogans
      • Why Are Safety Slogans Important
      • Safety Slogans Don’t Save Lives
      • 40 Free Safety Slogans For the Workplace
      • Safety Slogans for Work
    • FREE SAFETY eBOOKS
    • Free Hotel and Resort Risk Management Checklist
    • FREE DOWNLOADS
    • TOP 50
    • FREE RISK ASSESSMENT FORMS
    • Find a Safety Consultant
    • Free Safety Program Documents
    • Psychology Of Safety
    • Safety Ideas That Work
    • HEALTH and SAFETY MANUALS
    • FREE SAFE WORK METHOD STATEMENT RESOURCES
    • Whats New In Safety
    • FUN SAFETY STUFF
    • Health and Safety Training
    • SAFETY COURSES
    • Safety Training Needs Analysis and Matrix
    • Top 20 Safety Books
    • This Toaster Is Hot
    • Free Covid-19 Toolbox Talks
    • Download Page – Please Be Patient With Larger Files…….
    • SAFETY IMAGES, Photos, Unsafe Pictures and Funny Fails
    • How to Calculate TRIFR, LTIFR and Other Health and Safety Indicators
    • Download Safety Moments from Human Resources Secretariat
  • Social Psychology Of Risk
    • What is Psychological Health and Safety at Work?
    • Safety Psychology Terminology
    • Some Basics on Social Psychology & Risk
    • Understanding The Social Psychology of Risk – Prof Karl E. Weick
    • The Psychology of Leadership in Risk
    • Conducting a Psychology and Culture Safety Walk
    • The Psychology of Conversion – 20 Tips to get Started
    • Understanding The Social Psychology of Risk And Safety
    • Psychology and safety
    • The Psychology of Safety
    • Hot Toaster
    • TALKING RISK VIDEOS
    • WHAT IS SAFETY
    • THE HOT TOASTER
    • THE ZERO HARM DEBATE
    • SEMIOTICS
    • LEADERSHIP
  • Dr Long Posts
    • ALL POSTS
    • Learning Styles Matter
    • There is no Hierarchy of Controls
    • Scaffolding, Readiness and ZPD in Learning
    • What Can Safety Learn From Playschool?
    • Presentation Tips for Safety People
    • Dialogue Do’s and Don’ts
    • It’s Only a Symbol
    • Ten Cautions About Safety Checklists
    • Zero is Unethical
    • First Report on Zero Survey
    • There is No Objectivity, Deal With it!
  • THEMES
    • Risk Myths
    • Safety Myths
    • Safety Culture Silences
    • Safety Culture
    • Psychological Health and Safety
    • Zero Harm
    • Due Diligence
  • Free Learning
    • Introduction to SPoR – Free
    • FREE RISK and SAFETY EBOOKS
    • FREE ebook – Guidance for the beginning OHS professional
    • Free EBook – Effective Safety Management Systems
    • Free EBook – Lessons I Have Learnt
  • Psychological Safety
    • What is Psychological Health and Safety at Work?
    • Managing psychosocial hazards at work
    • Psychological Safety – has it become the next Maslow’s hammer?
    • What is Psychosocial Safety
    • Psychological Safety Slogans and Quotes
    • What is Psychological Safety?
    • Understanding Psychological Terminology
    • Psycho-Social and Socio-Psychological, What’s the Difference?
    • Build a Psychologically Safe Workplace by Taking Risks and Analysing Failures
    • It’s not weird – it’s a psychological safety initiative!
You are here: Home / Robert Long / Personhood and Risk

Personhood and Risk

January 29, 2021 by Dr Rob Long 3 Comments

Personhood and Risk

imageI have received several emails about my newsletter (https://safetyrisk.net/happy-new-year-for-2021-and-theme/) and the theme of gaslighting. It seems I struck a chord with many in risk and safety who have at some stage, realized that have been gaslighted  and had their personhood taken from them.

The realization that one’s personhood has been robbed by someone else is a devastating realization. The realization that one has been gaslighted can sometimes take 30-40 years of submission, manipulation, domination until one day something snaps. Then one looks back over many years and realizes that someone else has been using, controlling and binding you into a mould of being that suits them. The kind of you the gaslighter wants, is aided and abetted by the psychology of: submission, compliance, fear, binary opposition and absolutes. The zero cult is the perfect ideology for a hotbed of gaslighting. What better gaslighting strategy than the fear of risk and the anxiety for safety. Often, it’s not until the victim steps out into the big world of risk that they realize a predator has been controlling them for 30 years. Children in particular are easy prey for gaslighters because their innocence is exploited to teach them the fear of risk. This is why any attempt by the zero cult to indoctrinate schools and education institutions in zero should be rejected (https://safetyrisk.net/poisoning-the-professional-waterhole/ ).

Of course, the starting point in understanding gaslighting, is understanding personhood. You can’t understand dehumanising and gaslighting without a clear understanding of personhood. The beginning of tackling risk is summed up in this question: what does it mean to be a person? I don’t care what the rhetoric of safety is, if its method gaslights and dehumanises then it is unethical and not safe.

Unfortunately, the notion of personhood gets no mention in the AIHS BoK or safety curriculum, because zero is the raison d’etre for safety identity. It’s always a number for safety (https://safetyrisk.net/its-always-a-number/). This is why the AIHS BOK Chapter on ethics (https://safetyrisk.net/the-aihs-bok-and-ethics-check-your-gut/) makes no mention of personhood, the foundation of ethics. Similarly just as troubling, this supposed chapter on ethics makes no mention of the cult mantra of zero, nor how the denial of fallibility (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/fallibility-risk-living-uncertainty/) invokes brutalism.

The foundation of gaslighting and dehumanizing is to take from another their being in personhood. Gaslighters use objects, they don’t have relationships with persons of mutuality and respect. This is why the cult of zero is unethical. It is a mechanism for making persons numerical objects. So the following extract from my book The Social Psychology of Risk Handbook is attached to this blog to assist in a definition of personhood.

Gaslighting is manifest in the dehumanizing of persons, the most common output of the cult of zero.

Extract from The Social Psychology of Risk Handbook (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/the-social-psychology-of-risk-handbook/) Chapter 2 (pp. 30-32) sets out a clear definition of personhood. For the purposes of this blog the following is summative:

Personhood

Defining personhood is perhaps the most important concept in the Social Psychology of Risk.

Testing Theories of Personhood

‘One of the first assignments my daughter had in her nursing degree in 2017 was an ethics essay involving a moral conflict. The topic of the essay put her as a paramedic in a home event involving a dead person and various decisions involving moral compromise of the body. Here is the essay question:

‘Sam and Natalie, both senior paramedics, attempted to resuscitate a 78 year old man who had suffered
a cardiac arrest at home. After 45 minutes, resuscitative efforts were discontinued due to lack of clinical response. Immediately afterwards, a student paramedic, Jim, who had accompanied Sam and Natalie
on the call-out, asked if he could re-intubate the patient for practice purposes. Jim argued that, as the man’s wife would not really understand what he was doing, no-one would be harmed. However, Sam and Natalie thought it inappropriate, but were unable to explain to Jim why they objected to his proposal. Jim reluctantly agreed not to re-intubate the man but asked, instead, if he could take a photograph of the deceased man to upload on to his clinical experience portfolio’. Discuss.

The essay confronted the challenge of rights involving dead persons. If a person is dead, what right do they have to conscious decision making? Does it matter what we do to a cadaver/corpse? If they are not conscious of what is done to their body, in what sense must we maintain dignity, integrity and compassion?

The detail of the essay is not important for this discussion other than to make clear that even in the
first year the nursing profession an ethic of risk and personhood were considered foundational to the profession of ‘helping’. It was also helpful to step beyond the simplistic binary notions of ‘the easy fix’. It didn’t matter what decision the paramedic made, some extended interests/people that were not present at the time had to be considered in decision making. Furthermore, the issue of trajectory and principles had to considered even though those people of interest were neither present nor informed.

I remember when training in theology I did field placements at a cemetery/crematorium and a funeral clinic. In such circumstances even though family and people of interest were not present, the same principles of dignity, respect, integrity and beneficence must be present because of the principles of personhood. Of course, some come at the notion of care through fear, just imagine if someone found out that their loved one’s body was abused? What if the ashes got mixed up? etc. This is the mythology of fear and punishment that dominates the risk and safety industry and cannot ever be a foundation for an ‘ethic of risk’.

So what is personhood? How do we define the human person?

The following defines the nature of personhood. (Concepts highlighted in bold indicate essential capacities of personhood).

  1. A person is first and foremost a social subject. Personhood can only be understood in relation to others socially and psychologically. We participate in Socialitie (the holistic resonance of all humans with other humans ) and can only be defined intercorporeally (Fuchs).
  2. As embodied persons we are affected by all that happens in, to, around and for us. Interaffectivity, (Fuchs) determines all our actions and limits any sense of autonomy. Whilst human persons have a degree of autonomy this is incomplete and relative to identity, context and the collective unconscious. Individuality is only confirmed in relation to Socialitie.
  3. As embodied persons we act as agents in decision making. Most human decisions affect others and involve a degree of self-consciousness, however, this is not complete either.
  4. Humans are conscious, subconscious (deficit – Freud), non-conscious (Damasio) and unconscious (positive – Jung).
  5. As self conscious knowers we don’t know all things, humans are fallible and limited as agents. In this sense, persons are unable to anticipate all things (mortal) and so cannot anticipate many consequences of their limited ability to choose (finite). Yet despite this, as embodied persons, humans possess an essential unity. Human persons are identified with their body and their soul/spirit/personality.
  6. Humans are not just rational beings but also moral, emotional and unconscious beings. They are not objects nor machines in a system, they are participants in their own ecology.
  7. As self-conscious limited agents humans discover, imagine and create not just physically but semiotically, in language, discourse, sign systems, metaphor, poetics, aesthetics and creation of meaning and purpose (semiosis).
  8. As choosers human persons are valuers, for to chose is to value. Most importantly, human persons dream and enter into knowing unconsciously including: the creation of music, art, dance, religion and Poetics.
  9. A critical capability of personhood is the making of meaning and purpose through language and semiotics (sign and symbols systems).
  10. Personhood is strongly anchored to feelings and e-motions and these are expressed through language, semiotics, reasoning, metaphor and moral action. Persons are able to discover, initiate, create and initiate language and behaviours with and without determination/necessity.
  11. All of these qualities and capabilities mean that a human person lives and acts in dialectic with their environment, culture, embodiment and fallibility.
  12. Persons cannot sit at anytime in absolutes neither can they know perfection. Everything persons do is contingent on their Socialitie and humanity. A critical aspect of human personhood is coming to grips with fallibility, vulnerability and uncertainty and the nature of learning, development and risk.
  13. Persons are also teleological, that is, they are shaped and formed by their ends. Humans know that when they bury their dead they are viewing their own death and so this facilitates the creation of meaning, even religious meaning in living.

Benner (2016) uses the metaphor of the Russian nested dolls in an effort to explain how all these qualities integrate and define personhood. All of these sit within another and one cannot dissect human personhood like a machine/object and find the seat of personhood in just: sentience, brain or intelligence. Personhood is very much embodied.

One of the best approaches to an integrated sense of personhood comes from the apostle Paul who was the first to integrate all of the following into his understanding of personhood: head, heart, gut, conscience, soul, spirit, body and flesh (see further: Jewett). In many ways Pauline anthropology was both original and radical for its day. Even though Paul used expressions like the ‘inner and outer person’ he very much saw humans as unified and embodied which was far removed from the anthropology of either Plato or Aristotle. He used the language of heart, mind, flesh, conscience, soul and mind to give purpose to social relationships and meaning in the face of political tyranny.

Why does personhood need defining and defending?

The following helps define the processes involved in dehumanising and de-personalising in risk. (Concepts highlighted in bold indicate essential aspects that destroy personhood)

  1. A range of ideologies and unethical tendencies have been established in the risk and safety industry that serve to work against personhood and human ‘being’. These ideologies include: Reductionism, Scientism, Behaviourism, Cognitvism, Rationalism and Positivism. All these ideologies emerge in the risk industry from a mathematico-engineering view of the world and result in the definition of humans as ‘objects’. Indeed, the scientism (science as ideology) view (not a science view) understands humans as just creatures of the natural world, as biological objects in the sense of ‘just another animal’.
  2. Recent developments highlight problems associated with ethics, morality and mis-definition of personhood. One such event has been the development of sex with robots  The ethical dilemmas associated with this development highlight all the problems associated with a mis-definition of personhood.
  3. We only need to listen to the language of the Technique (the quest for efficiency) and the Technology industry to understand how it views persons. It speaks of: ‘Artificial’ intelligence, ‘Non-human’ Intelligence, ‘Synthetic’, ‘Simulation’, ‘Machine’ learning, ‘programmed’ and ‘algorithms’. Of course machines cannot ‘learn’ because they cannot feel, and so machines cannot be persons. The adjustment of an algorithm in response to another algorithm is not learning. In what ways do machines learn, dream, create and feel?
  4. It is clear from any perspective that machines don’t have a ‘lived experience’. Anything machines do can only ever be a secondary representation of human experience. In other words it is not ’real’ but simulated and augmented.
  5. Machines cannot have a ‘Mind’ in the sense of: personhood, soul, spirit and Mind. They cannot ‘feel’ emotions interactively (Fuchs) as an embodied person, just as machines cannot dream or learn through the unconscious as machines have no unconscious.
  6. Similarly, machines cannot know suffering, pain, risk or learning and so cannot be persons nor be a Mind. The repetition of algorithms is at best ‘parrot learning’ but cannot result in a change in personhood because machines are not persons.

Some Important Texts on Personhood

· Arendt, H., (1958) The Human Condition.

· Bauer, J., and Harteis, C., (2012) Human Fallibility, The Ambiguity of Errors for Work and Learning.

· Benner, D., (2016) Human Being and Becoming, Living the Adventure of Life and Love.

· Fuchs,T., (2018) Ecology of the Brain.

· Harding, S., (2015) Paul’s Eschatological Anthropology: The Dynamics of Human Transformation

· Jewett, R., (1971) Paul’s Anthropological Terms, A Study of Their Use in Conflict Settings.

· Kirkwood, C., (2012) The Persons in Relation Perspective, In Counselling, Psychotherapy and Community Adult Learning.

· Lotman, Y., (1990) Universe of the Mind, A Semiotic Theory of Culture.


· Madsbjerg, C., (2017) Sensemaking, What Makes Human Intelligence Essential in the Age of the Algorithm.

· Martin, J., Sugarman, J., and Hickinbottom, S., (2010) Persons: Understanding Psychological Selfhood and Agency

· Schwarz, H., (2013) The Human Being, A Theological Anthropology.
Semler, L., Hodge, B., and Kelly, P., (2012) What is the Human? Australian Voices from the Humanities.

· Splitter, L., (2015) Identity and Personhood, Confusions and Clarifications across Disciplines

  • Bio
  • Latest Posts
  • More about Rob
Dr Rob Long

Dr Rob Long

Expert in Social Psychology, Principal & Trainer at Human Dymensions
Dr Rob Long

Latest posts by Dr Rob Long (see all)

  • Welcome to the Nightmare, Safety Creates its Own Minefield (as usual) - January 23, 2023
  • Getting the Balance Right in Tackling Risk - January 23, 2023
  • What is SPoR? - January 23, 2023
  • How Bias Inhibits Learning in Safety - January 23, 2023
  • Afraid to Let Go of What Doesn’t Work in Safety - January 17, 2023
Dr Rob Long
PhD., MEd., MOH., BEd., BTh., Dip T., Dip Min., Cert IV TAA, MRMIA Rob is the founder of Human Dymensions and has extensive experience, qualifications and expertise across a range of sectors including government, education, corporate, industry and community sectors over 30 years. Rob has worked at all levels of the education and training sector including serving on various post graduate executive, post graduate supervision, post graduate course design and implementation programs.

Please share our posts

  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)

Related

Filed Under: Robert Long, Social Psychology of Risk, Zero Harm Tagged With: gaslighting, personhood

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Rob Long says

    January 29, 2021 at 6:51 PM

    Bernard, only the cult of zero can turn brutalism into an art form.

    Reply
  2. Bernard Corden says

    January 29, 2021 at 4:37 PM

    The following link provides access to a report from the Reverend James Jones, the Bishop of Liverpool and provides plenty of examples covering the defilement of personhood during the aftermath of the Hillsborough disaster:

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/655892/6_3860_HO_Hillsborough_Report_2017_FINAL_WEB_updated.pdf

    Here are several extracts:

    ‘I was taken to the mortuary. This was cruel. This was my brother, who I knew inside out;
    who I had slept with. It was just through a window… I asked if I could go in and see him.
    There was a kerfuffle. They said no, he was the property of the coroner. I said “he is not,
    he is my mother’s property”.’

    ‘Police officers visited my mum shortly after the disaster… They brought my dad’s
    belongings in a bin liner and just tipped them on the floor. They said, “What was an old
    man doing going to a game like that?”’

    ‘…then that dreadful day [he] went to a football match and never came home. We waited
    till 12.30 on that day phoning all day, but no answer. So we went to Sheffield hoping he
    was at a hospital. But he was at the gym. They would not let me touch him and said he
    belongs to us, I shouted at them and said he does not belong to you – Anthony is my
    son. I was so out of it I just sat there crying. There was a couple of Salvation Army people,
    they came over to us, and started to speak to us. We then made our way to the medical
    centre. We identified Anthony and still couldn’t hold him. They were so stern with us.’

    Betty Almond, mother of Anthony Kelly.

    ‘Our friend Steve had to go and identify the bodies [of Inger Shah and her friend Marian
    McCabe] and give a statement early on Sunday 16th April – just hours after the disaster.
    He told me South Yorkshire police officers asked if he was “shagging my mum”.’

    Becky Shah, daughter of Inger Shah

    The late Anne Williams embarked on a prolonged campaign to prove her son was alive way beyond the controversial cut-off time imposed by the coroner. The following link describes her harrowing plight:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmcQ1WJkpZE

    Reply
  3. Rob Long says

    January 29, 2021 at 3:23 PM

    Addendum: if you want an insight into the terror of grooming and gaslighting watch this.
    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-25/2021-australian-of-the-year-award-recipients-named/13089884

    Reply

Do you have any thoughts? Please share them below Cancel reply

Primary Sidebar

Search and Discover More on this Site

Never miss a post - Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address and join other discerning risk and safety people who receive notifications of new posts by email

Join 7,495 other subscribers

Introduction to SPOR – FREE!!

SAFETY MYTHS SERIES

The Mythic Symbology of Safety

Posture Myths and Holistic Ergonomics

Safety Mythbusters

Don’t Be Emotional! Another Safety Myth

Tackling the Challenge of Heuristics in Safety

The Myth of Normal

NEW! Free Download

Please take our 2 minute zero survey

Recent Comments

  • Rob long on Welcome to the Nightmare, Safety Creates its Own Minefield (as usual)
  • Matt Thorne on Welcome to the Nightmare, Safety Creates its Own Minefield (as usual)
  • Anonymous on Welcome to the Nightmare, Safety Creates its Own Minefield (as usual)
  • Jason on How Bias Inhibits Learning in Safety
  • Rob Long on How Bias Inhibits Learning in Safety
  • Admin on How Bias Inhibits Learning in Safety
  • Rob Long on 400,000 Free Downloads
  • Gustavo Saralegui on 400,000 Free Downloads
  • Rob long on To Err is Human, You Better Believe It
  • Wynand on To Err is Human, You Better Believe It
  • Rob Long on To Err is Human, You Better Believe It
  • simon cassin on To Err is Human, You Better Believe It
  • Rob Long on Records of safety activities: evidence of safety or non-compliance?
  • Matt Thorne on Free Online Workshops
  • Rob long on No Good Reason to Follow Reason
  • Brian Edwin Darlington on No Good Reason to Follow Reason
  • Risk Diversity on Book Launch – For the Love of Zero – in Portuguese
  • Rob Long on No Good Reason to Follow Reason
  • Risk Culture Builder on No Good Reason to Follow Reason
  • Mark Taylor on All Things Must Pass in Risk

FREE eBOOK DOWNLOADS

Footer

VIRAL POST – The Risk Matrix Myth

Top Posts & Pages. Sad that most are so dumb but this is what safety luves

  • Free Safety Moments and Toolbox Talk Examples, Tips and Resources
  • 500 OF THE BEST WORKPLACE HEALTH and SAFETY SLOGANS 2023
  • Road Safety Slogans 2023
  • Download Safety Moments from Human Resources Secretariat
  • Welcome to the Nightmare, Safety Creates its Own Minefield (as usual)
  • How Bias Inhibits Learning in Safety
  • CATCHY and FUNNY SAFETY SLOGANS FOR THE WORKPLACE
  • Safety Acronyms
  • 15 Safety Precautions When Working With Electricity
  • How to Calculate TRIFR, LTIFR and Other Health and Safety Indicators

Recent Posts

  • Welcome to the Nightmare, Safety Creates its Own Minefield (as usual)
  • Getting the Balance Right in Tackling Risk
  • What is SPoR?
  • How Bias Inhibits Learning in Safety
  • Afraid to Let Go of What Doesn’t Work in Safety
  • When You Don’t Know What to do in Safety, Have Another Blitz!!!
  • Gloves and Glasses Compliance
  • A Case of Desensitisation – What Would You Do?
  • How to Leave the Safety Industry
  • The Mythic Symbology of Safety
  • Dark Waters, The True Story of DuPont and Zero
  • 400,000 Free Downloads
  • Am I stupid? I didn’t think of that…
  • Don’t Look Now Safety, Your Metaphor is Showing
  • Ratio Delusions and Heinrich’s Hoax
  • To Err is Human, You Better Believe It
  • Culture as a Wicked Problem, for Safety
  • Safety Leadership Training
  • Cultural Orientation in Risk
  • The Stanford Experiment and The Social Psychology of Risk
  • Objectivity, Audits and Attribution When Calculating Risk
  • Records of safety activities: evidence of safety or non-compliance?
  • Zero, The Seeking of Infinity
  • Safety Leadership Essentials
  • What Can Indiana Jones Tell Us About Culture
  • Safety as a Worldview
  • The Loathing of Limits
  • Culture Cannot be Framed Through Safety
  • Free Online Workshops
  • Safety Culture–Hudson’s Model
  • Book Launch – For the Love of Zero – in Portuguese
  • Advancing Backwards in Safety
  • The ‘Noise’ of Safety, Silence and Practicing of Mindfulness
  • All Things Must Pass in Risk
  • I’m just not that into safety anymore
  • Sticks and Stones and the Nonsense of Zero Harm
  • Courting Infallibility in Safety
  • Indicators of Risk
  • What Can Safety Learn From Playschool?
  • No Good Reason to Follow Reason
  • Just as Well Culture Doesn’t Listen to Safety
  • What Are the Benefits Of Social Psychology of Risk?
  • Short-Sighted Lenses by Safety
  • Is Safety the Empire of Non-Sense?
  • No Wonder Safety is Confused About Culture
  • Building High Performance Safety Cultures
  • Understanding iCue, a Visual, Verbal, Semiotic Method for Tackling Risk
  • On Culture and Safety
  • Focus on ‘Meeting’ people, not legislation – a path to risk maturity
  • The Moral Harm of the Zero Cult

VIRAL POST!!! HOW TO QUIT THE SAFETY INDUSTRY

FEATURED POSTS

When Slogans Don’t Work

The Safety Charade as Tokenism in Safety

I DON’T KNOW

A Professional Ethic of Risk

The Psychology of Blaming in Safety

When Art Speaks to Harm

SPoR Body of Knowledge – A Video

The Real Barriers to Safety

A Semiotic Map for Safety

You Don’t Want a Compliance Culture

The Psychic Effect of Safety

Risk and Safety as a Social Psychological Problem

The De-Ethicization of the Object in Safety

Social Psychology of Risk Two Day Workshop

CLLR Christmas 2016 Newsletter and Competition

7 Incredible Ways To Diagnose Risk More Effectively

Is Safetyism Destroying a Generation?

non-Leadership in Risk

In Honour of George Robotham and Geoff McDonald

There’s a Hole in Your Investigation.

The Deficit Focus and Safety Balance

Safety and the Spin of Disruption

Safety is not Just a Choice

Safety People Don’t ‘Save Lives’

Envisioning and Creativity in Safety

Social Psychology of Risk Challenge

Understanding Safety as an Archetype

Safety as Policing

Why Resilience Cannot be Engineered

Checklist Seduction and The Delusion of Data

The Learning (and unlearning) that Revealed my Vocation

Ethics, Morality and an Ethic of Risk

Acknowledge Trade-offs to Make Better Inquiries

My Journey with SPoR

3 Things I learned about Safety from Buddhism

The Convenience of Complacency

The Link Between Think and Blink

The Illusion Of Hazard Identification

The Fear of Freedom in Safety

The Bias of Method Design in Risk

More Posts from this Category

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address and join other discerning risk and safety people who receive notifications of new posts by email

Join 7,495 other subscribers

How we pay for the high cost of running of this site – try it for free on your site

WHAT IS PSYCHOLOGICAL SAFETY?

What is Psychological Safety at Work?