How Do We Know?

We cannot know about things we do not have a belief in. It makes no sense to say, “I know the earth is spherical, but I don’t believe it”. Yet it is important to note that believing something does not guarantee that the belief is right.

(Dew and Foreman 2014)

This quote from How Do We Know caused me to reflect about how we understand ‘knowledge’ in risk and safety. I wondered how some people working in our industry may respond to Dew and Foreman’s notion that “beliefs act as a first step” toward ‘knowledge’, and importantly whether our industry is mature enough to contemplate the thought that some part of ‘knowing’ is based on the subjective notion of ‘beliefs’.

I can sense by now that the Safety Crusaders reading this are thinking, “That is just ridiculous, knowledge is simply about competency and assessment, either people know stuff or they don’t, it’s got nothing to do with wishy washy beliefs. That’s just not the way things are done in risk and safety.” They may also be asking; “how can you measure beliefs?” This is probably because they adopt the approach of ‘what you can’t measure you can’t manage’. If you don’t pass the test, you don’t ‘know’, so therefore you just have to keep doing the test until you pass. That’s how we know that you know!

I’m guessing that if you have reached this point in the article that either you have some real interest in learning more about ‘how do we know’, or perhaps you are in such a state of ‘dissonance’ that you feel the need to read more just so you can disagree even further.

So what of this idea that belief may act as a first step toward knowledge?

READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE THAT I FIRST PUBLISHED HERE

The Paradox of Helping

I had the privilege of attending the Lifeline Brass Blokes Awards in my hometown of Newcastle last night. The Awards recognise the spirit of ‘blokes’ who have been through adversity yet still find the time, courage and inspiration to give back to their community. As well as celebrate these men, the event raises awareness of men’s mental health and suicide, plus raises funds for Lifeline Hunter Central Coast. It was a special night.

One of the unique features of the awards was the ‘entertainment’. It involved a panel (in this case Mark Hughes, Kurt Fernley and Nic Newling) discussion where a few invited guests talked through their own experiences in dealing with adversity and how they gave back to their community. You may not be surprised why these awards appealed to me.

During the panel discussion, a comment by Nic really struck a chord with me. When asked about ways that we can ‘help’ someone with a mental health problem, he suggested listening is key. The secret he said was not to try to sort things out for the other person, instead focus on being present and attentive to the other person’s situation and focus on listening.

Could it be that listening is one critical skill that we all need to focus on if our aim is to ‘help’ others? What lessons could we take from Lifeline about how to best help someone in a time when life doesn’t feel worth living anymore?

This got me to thinking further about what does it mean to ‘help’? Could what we think is ‘help’, actually be quite the opposite for those we think we are helping? What if our ‘help’ made things worse? What may be the outcome if we impose our ‘help’ on others who are not seeking the type of ‘help’ that we are offering? If we constantly focus on fixing other peoples problems, could it have the effect of contributing to their pain, as they feel helpless to fix things for themselves? Further, what could it mean for the resilience of others if we constantly impose our ‘help’ on them?

The Paradox of Helping.

I had some good conversations last night, none better than with my friend John who has many years experience ‘helping’ others in this situation and knows a thing or two about what others may need in a time of despair. John is also a believer that listening can be the greatest help that you could give someone, especially someone contemplating suicide.

One of the most challenging questions John and I tackled was “could committing suicide be the best outcome for someone”?

To even contemplate this question, perhaps one needs to first accept the paradox, complexity and messiness of life, and more importantly consider the question from the perspective of others, not self.

The answer that I suspect most people would respond with is a resounding no. How could someone taking his or her life be anything but bad?

What if we thought about this in a different way? A way focused on better understanding other people instead of imposing our own values, and controlling them? What if the only real decision that person felt like they had control of, was the decision to take their own life? Could at least being in control of that decision be better than living a life of despair, anger, guilt, pain and/or suffering? Of course, the reality is that we could never know the answer to this question, and I suspect, nor can the other person.

The Paradox of Helping. How can we ever really know what is the best ‘help’ for others?

Could it be that if our agenda is for others to be free (of guilt, anger, pain and despair etc…) that we need to reject the urge (and seduction) to impose our own values, beliefs and control onto them and instead, feel comfort that others are making decisions for themselves? Of course, when we understand the paradox of helping, we recognise that this may cause pain for us in doing so.

Do we try to ‘help’ at all cost because the pain of not helping (e.g. suicide) is too much for us to deal with, rather than considering what is best for others? This is such a challenging situation to consider, and I suspect one that is counter intuitive for most of us. I understand this. I don’t want anyone I know to die, but I do want people to be free to live and make their own decisions. The Paradox of Helping?

I can’t imagine the pain, suffering and anguish that someone who is considering taking their own life may feel, I imagine there is no pain like this in living. Consider how someone who is feeling this pain may feel if they constantly sense they needed to be ‘fixed’. Isn’t their pain enough already?

Imagine being in a situation where you were contemplating ending your life because you felt there was just nothing else that could be done to deal with your pain. Then, in a last desperate attempt to reach out, you pick up the phone. At the end of the line is someone who is there to listen and ‘meet’ you. Not to fix you, just to listen. The listening may just be the ‘help’ you are after.

Maybe the listening doesn’t fix the situation you are in. Maybe the source of your pain and suffering continue. But if you have someone who can hear your story, without judgment and opinion, maybe (and of course, it has to be maybe, as there is no certainty in life), that is enough ‘help’ to get you through that terrible moment of loneliness and pain?

I find these tough questions. I suspect that if I was faced with the question that John and I talked about last night just a few years ago, that my answer and my thinking, would be very different.

For those of us who love to talk and spark up a conversation, perhaps being conscious of listening more is the critical if we are to truly ‘help’ people.

Perhaps so to is, understanding The Paradox of Helping?

If you are in a situation where you would like someone to listen without judgment and opinion you can call Lifeline on 131144. They may not be able to ‘fix’ your situation, but that’s probably not what you need or want, you probably just want someone who will listen to, and ‘meet’ you.

If you’d like to support Lifeline deliver it’s vital and important services, why not join their 8 for a Mate program?

 

The Paradox of Helping, what does this mean for you?

As usual, I’d love to hear your thoughts, experiences and comments.

Author:           Robert Sams

Phone:             0424 037 112

Email:              robert@dolphyn.com.au

Web:                www.dolphyn.com.au

Facebook:       Follow Dolphyn on Facebook

Developing Our Inner Introversion

…..the art of questioning becomes more difficult as status increases. Our culture emphasizes that leaders must be wiser, set direction and articulate values, all of which predisposes them to tell rather than ask”.

Edgar Schein in Humble Inquiry (2013, p.5)

I attended a ‘thinking group’ meeting last week with a new group of people that I hadn’t met before. While I was reflecting on the gathering afterwards, one thing that occurred to me was that among the people that I was with, I was the last to introduce myself. In fact, I didn’t speak at all (aside from a short “Hi, I’m Rob) for the first 15 minutes or so. There were new people to meet and I was interested in ‘their stories’. We had a great chat and I got to know some interesting new people.

Wind the clock back a couple of years however, and given the same setting, I would have been busting at the bit to be the first to speak, to be the center of attention in the meeting and generally being the extroverted and energetic guy I had been known for.

I have observed this often from my peers in risk and safety where being extroverted and energetic is often seen as critical for success. To be described as ‘passionate’, ‘engaging’, and ‘energetic’ seems to be a sign of preeminence. It seems that being an ‘extrovert’ is synonymous with being passionate about, caring for and to be frank, being ‘good’ at safety. But is this right? To be successful in risk and safety do we need to come across as outgoing, passionate and engaging? If this is our style, if our preference is to ‘engage first’ rather than ‘ask and listen’, what does this mean for our relationships with others?

I wonder if there is a need for those of is working in risk and safety to take time out to think about how we go about things? What benefit would come from more listening, inquiring and understanding rather than jumping in with answers, solutions, and instructions?

READ THE FULL ARTICLE, FIRST PUBLISHED HERE

Learning from people who we don’t agree with

I recently read this article, shared with me by a friend, and written by Mark Brandi a former ministerial adviser in the Bracks Labor government in Victoria, Australia.

The article got me thinking of the many conversations I have had with good friend James Ellis over recent months, where we have talked about the importance of learning from people who we don’t agree with, or who share different views from our own. Image Source

For me, the following quotes from the article sum it up well, and form my thesis for this piece:

“Online forums have become echo chambers where polemic masquerades as discussion and devotees crave the “gotcha” moment that confirms their prejudice. On Facebook and Twitter, participants seek out those who reflect or reinforce their own views. Real conversations are rare.  Without doubt, social media enhances our ability to connect and share knowledge. Paradoxically, the lack of engagement with opposing views disconnects us from reality.

Retweet. Like. Share. This could be doing us a disservice. If we are isolated from opposing views, we cannot test the strength of our arguments. If we surround ourselves only with those who agree, we will not convince anyone.

Online activism, while alluring, is not a replacement for real conversations.”

This resonated with me as I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how we deal with, and make sense of the views and thoughts of people who don’t agree with me.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE, FIRST PUBLISHED HERE