Matt and I recently had a chat about the relationship of learning to zero (https://vimeo.com/manage/videos/890883153) and why zero ideology is anti-learning and anti-resilience. This was followed by another video where we discuss the nature of belief (https://vimeo.com/manage/videos/890886064) which starts with a conversation about placing an angel on top of a Christmas tree. These were also put up as podcasts (https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/socialpsychologyofrisk)

In the discussion we make a distinction between identity of the person as the belief and de-coupling acceptance of the person but not their belief. It is possible to have a worldview that is in conflict with the belief of another without rejecting the person per se. Such a disposition understands the important of dissonance and discomfort as essential for learning and the development of resilience. Unfortunately, in safety, criticism of safety beliefs is interpreted as being anti-safety and anti the person. This is because the industry fosters the identity of safety persons as the persona of safety (https://safetyrisk.net/you-are-not-the-sum-of-safety/).

Such a disposition (that accepts the person but not the belief) requires tolerance which of course is anathema to Zero. Indeed, the ideology of Zero cultivates risk aversion and Fragility (https://safetyrisk.net/fragility-resilience-and-antifragility-in-risk/). Such a disposition demonises risk which is essential for the development of learning and resilience.

• There can be no learning or resilience without risk.
• The suppression of risk is also the suppression of learning.
• There is no learning without movement.

Indeed, all learning involves ‘letting go’ of certainty and embracing some degree of uncertainty (what is not known). If one is oriented towards learning then such involves some letting go and movement. The ideology of zero involves a fixation on stasis. Once you get to zero, nothing loves, no-one learns. This is why fallibility is a blessing for humans, it creates the necessity of being, living, risk, doing, moving and learning. We would experience none of these without fallibility (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/fallibility-risk-living-uncertainty/).

This is why the Behaviourst construct of what it is to be human (https://safetyrisk.net/the-behaviourist-human-and-human-being/) is non-sense. This is why the Behaviourist fixation on controls for human error are pure mythology (https://safetyrisk.net/understanding-human-being-the-foundation-for-understanding-human-error/).

This is why the methods of SPoR (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/spor-and-semiotics/) reject zero and Behaviourism in tackling the challenges of risk. This is because learning and resilience are at the foundation of SPoR indeed, and are its purpose in humanising safety.

Zero Vision and Learning from CLLR on Vimeo.