Computers and AI don’t have fallible bodies and fallible bodies are essential for human learning. Without a fallible body there is no e-motion and emotions are essential for learning. Similarly, computers and AI have no unconscious and most learning occurs in the human unconscious. Similarly, computers and AI have no learned heuristics, they don’t need heuristics because they don’t have fallible bodies.

So, without bodies, emotions and an unconscious, computers and AI cannot ‘understand’ (feel) risk. There is no algorithm that can teach a computer transcendence or thinking with the soul, because machines have no soul, nor sense of spirit. None of this ‘computes’. Similarly, a computer can never feel religious, the foundational emotion of culture (never discussed in any conversation about ‘safety culture’ across the globe).

Even though embodiment is essential to an understanding of culture, it gets no mention anywhere in discussion on ‘safety culture’. This is only one of dozens of silences about culture in safety (https://safetyrisk.net/category/safety-culture-silences/) but when Safety speaks about culture, it’s all too confusing, all too hard – let’s not talk about it, especially in a Transdisciplinary way.

And so, we see, that using a computing metaphor to equate to the fallible human Mind, doesn’t work. Brains are not computer like, neither is the fallible Mind (person) a rationalist cognitive behaviourist object.

Similarly, culture is not about behaviours, organising, structure, systems or leadership. Such attributions are indicators that the speaker doesn’t know about culture.

When we move away from conceptual metaphors of brains-as-computers, eyes-as-cameras and culture-as-structure, we change our whole perspective on perception, motivation, social meaning, semiosis and Socialitie. Neither camera, computer or structure metaphor serve fallible humans well in understanding risk.

 

A typical example is this: https://www.ecoportal.com/one-percent-safer – masquerading as ‘safety culture’ and it’s just more safety code (https://safetyrisk.net/deciphering-safety-code/). Nothing ‘fresh’ or ‘different’ just more behaviourism and metrics (https://safetyrisk.net/more-safety-code-to-disguise-behaviourism/). No ‘wisdom’ or ‘insight’ can ever come from framing safety as a metric journey. The so called ‘One Precent Safer Philosophy’ offers no articulated philosophy. There is no ‘gold-mine’ nor ‘vision’ that come from framing safety as a numeric. It’s all just zero under another brand. And since this propaganda has been on the market, please show me the change in method or outcome in safety culture? Incrementalism and nudge theory (https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/what-nudge-theory-got-wrong) is a great way to disguise a lack of innovation, creativity and meaning. Collecting and stringing slogans together does not provide purpose. More smoke and mirrors and of course none of it can be measured, it just uses the mask of measurement for marketing.

The best place to begin with learning about embodiment is in research by Damasio, Johnson and Fuchs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Damasio

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Johnson_(philosopher)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Fuchs

It is from Intercorporeality and Interaffectivity (https://embodimentblog.wordpress.com/2013/09/16/intercorporeality/; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306570122_Intercorporeality_and_Interaffectivity) that we can begin to understand being, living and culture.

BTW, none of this is mentioned anywhere in the safety world in any discussion on safety culture. Safety is silent in what matters (https://safetyrisk.net/category/safety-culture-silences/) and noisy about what matters least. Eg. zero, injury rates, regulation, paperwork etc.

If you want to know about safety culture don’t frame or source your approach through safety (https://safetyrisk.net/if-you-want-to-know-about-culture-dont-ask-safety/).

Just do a quick search for ‘safety culture’ and the top 20 hits are about systems, behaviours, leadership, checklists, inspections and structure, none about culture. Indeed, the website ‘safetyculture’ (https://safetyculture.com/) has nothing to do with culture. Or perhaps have a look at this one https://sentis.com.au/articles/category/safety-culture. Again, very little to do with culture, listen for the silences.

None of the following are discussed anywhere in safety with regard to culture:

· Conceptual Metaphor

· Semiotics

· Semiosphere

· Collective Unconscious

· Safety as Archetype

· Meaning-Purpose

· Dialectic (Existentialist)

· Religious knowing, ritual, Semiosis

· Transcendence

· Ethics

· Politics

· Wickedity

· Phenomenology/Being

· Embodiment

This list above serve as demarcation points to determine expertise in culture. If embodiment or any of these are not discussed then what is being presented is most probably about organising, behaviours or structure.

Indeed, just chase a little research in Anthropology on culture (https://www.pearsonhighered.com/assets/samplechapter/0/2/0/5/0205260012.pdf; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267867554_Cultural_Anthropology_101) and compare it to anything labelled ‘safety culture’ and play mix and match.

For example, this is typical of something purporting to be about culture that is not: ‘What does safety culture mean?’ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMvYgJMH7tA)

Again, listen for the silences.

If you want to learn about culture, you can study a Transdisciplinary approach here: https://cllr.com.au/product/culture-leadership-program-unit-15/