We learn yet again from research that risk is good, maturation and beneficial for learning. We also learn that risk aversion is anti-learning. And in the same way we also learn that zero is anti-learning.

One thing is for sure in safety is no matter what the issue whether it be ethics, psychosocial risk, mental health, culture or curriculum, don’t mention anything about zero. Fancy writing a chapter on ethics for the AIHS BoK and keeping silent on zero (https://safetyrisk.net/safety-culture-silences/). This is what safety does so well. Don’t focus on what Safety is noisy about, focus on what Safety is silent about, to really find out what it believes and values.

What is interesting about this research is that it draws a strong link between risk aversion and causes of mental health issues. Hey folks, I said it many years ago Risk Makes Sense and suggested many years that the safety curriculum is the key to reform in safety (https://safetyrisk.net/isnt-it-time-we-reformed-the-whs-curriculum/). And what happens for Safety? Nothing. Don’t dare touch either of these sacred cows in safety – zero or the curriculum. In this way we can keep all the window dressing in place and nothing changes.

And what ideology is the greatest driver of mental health disorders? Zero!

The fear of harm is the beginning of mental health issues.

Counting every type of harm is a fixation on risk aversion. You can just say thanks to the Heinrich delusion for that (https://safetyrisk.net/hoodwinked-by-heinrich/). And still we get the Heinrich myth (https://safetyrisk.net/deconstructing-the-myth-of-heinrich/) being peddled everywhere in safety as if it is true or real.

There is no greater fraud in the safety world than Heinrich.

 Yet, that myth drives risk aversion, injury counting and delusions that an injury rate is somehow a definition of safety.

There is no ratio or equivalence between injury rates and the presence of safety.

This is how we end up with the myth of risk aversion as good.

This is how we end up with a PHS Con 24 that leaves the foundations of harm untouched. This includes a range of safety speakers with no expertise in mental health or psychosocial risk (https://psychhealthandsafetyconference.com/speakers/marie-boland/; https://psychhealthandsafetyconference.com/speakers/dr-i-david-daniels/;https://psychhealthandsafetyconference.com/speakers/jim-kelly/). This is how you get a conference about psychosocial hazards completely silent on the criticality of resilience. This is where you get naïve and immature projections about making mental health easy and simple (https://flourishdx.com/).

This is how you make sure that the foundations of zero and a mis-educative curriculum stay in place.

This is how the problem of risk aversion and anti-learning are never spoken about or how people are abused by safety=zero.

So, make sure nothing is mentioned about the positives of risk. Make sure that nothing is said about how zero suppresses risk.

If you want to know how zero ideology fosters mental health issues then you can download free books here: https://www.humandymensions.com/shop/

You can read about what works here: https://www.humandymensions.com/product/it-works-a-new-approach-to-risk-and-safety-book-for-free-download/

You can see a better curriculum here: https://cllr.com.au/elearning/

You can watch some free videos and podcasts that demonstrate the toxicity of zero and the current safety curriculum here: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/socialpsychologyofrisk; https://vimeo.com/cllr

Read blogs against the toxicity of zero here: https://safetyrisk.net/?s=zero

Read about better models and methods here: https://www.humandymensions.com/product/spor-and-semiotics/

When one finally discovers that Risk Makes Sense and culture is a wicked problem, then one tackles the challenges of mental health very differently than Safety and begin to tackle the foundations of the problem not continue with the window dressing.