Como saber em que acreditar? Será que essa Nova Visão tá certa?

Don't believe the New Vision! If you want to evolve and improve safety at work way, don't believe the New View. True Story!

Stay there so we can talk some more. Another Beyond Zero is starting. Not long ago I was talking about the New Vision, about some theories and things we could do better in our organization, until I heard from one of my colleagues: "Yeah, no, okay, I just need to believe in the New Vision.

" and I stopped to think: but no that's not the point. THE new View doesn't want you to believe it. In the end, we need to base our thoughts on science.

And it's okay that for a long time many people took safety at work as a religion with symbols and phrases and things that we believed without question. As if they were absolute truths. It's time for us to stop just believing in things and people and start really learning and to learn we need to be suspicious, we need to look for evidence, do small experiments to see if they work.

And finally start to apply it more broadly. And how do we then learn to seek this knowledge? After all, you and I and many of our colleagues have studied quite serious institutions with serious professors who in turn studied with serious people too.

and far from me to question the credibility, knowledge, or experience of all these professionals, who taught us, that made us get here It turns out that, from my own experience, and everything I see talking around, we were not taught to really pursue the research and scientific data that drive all the information provided to us. This is the point of our conversation, how do we know if information we are receiving, if something we are reading, or something someone is talking about can really be taken seriously? Can it really be treated as truth or something we can learn from?

Then we get to the tip I want to give you today, it was something I learned from the Safety of Work podcast, I've talked about it before here and I recommend you watch all the episodes. It's a simple tool, but I'm sure it will help you not to believe in anything anymore and really extract what you can really learn, and if you can learn from what you're facing at that moment. It is the acronym TRAAP.

Remember trap! T has to do with time. How long ago was that theory that theorem that article written?

Is it still valid? Many people still faithfully defend Taylor's ideas, which were first edited in 1909. The world has changed a lot since then, are they still valid for your workplace for your organization for your task?

R is for relevance. How relevant is that information, that article, to what you are looking for? Does that really answer your questions?

For which audience was it written or intended? And does this information, does this package of information answer your questions to your doubts? The first A is for authority.

Or it can be author. Did you research to understand where that person comes from? What is that person's past?

Professional, research history? What does this information reveal to you? What other things, what other articles has that person written, published?

What do other people say about her or him? A good example of checking relevance and authority is the accident pyramid or accident triangle, the Heinrich pyramid. The author did not come from the area of ​​safety at work and did not try to answer questions or try to understand the causes that led to major, fatal accidents.

So is this triangle really relevant to our work? No. No!

Nooooo! The second A is for accuracy. Can you verify that information?

Is it based on scientific data and emotion-free? Or is it perhaps a purge of feelings that that person wanted to put out to the world? A great example of the accuracy test is the search for zero accidents.

There's a lot of organizations out there investing endless resources in the search, promotion and even zero accident celebrations. It turns out that there is no scientific evidence to support that the pursuit of zero accidents is beneficial for the organization. In fact, scientific evidence shows otherwise.

We already talked about this in another conversation. And the last letter of our tool is the P for purpose, or point of view. Is the point of view of that authority, of that person who is proposing this idea, this article, in short, is that point of view objective?

Or are there second, third, or fourth intentions behind it? Are there political, economic, sentimental interests? I'm sure this tool will help you not to believe in the New Vision, or any other shenanigans out there.

Tell me, when you use it, what you find and what you learn. Until then, you might like this video. YouTube says it's the best for you.

This is my last upload. Don't forget to subscribe to receive the new content that I will publish here. Until then, big hug, take care and don't forget to have fun.