Why are some security experts hindsight thinkers
Thread Content
Safety is inherently a very complex issue, isn’t it? Accidents are events with low probability, and even fewer of those rare low-probability incidents develop into major accidents. It is extremely difficult to accurately predict and determine whether an accident will occur and how severe it will be. Even if it were possible to determine with 100% certainty that an accident, or even a major accident, would occur, effective measures would definitely have been taken in advance to prevent and control it; once such measures are implemented, the accident disaster will not happen. As an outsider, one generally doesn’t realize at this point the significant role that security experts play; on the contrary, one might sometimes wonder whether the measures taken and the resources invested are necessary or a waste As a result, the significant contributions of security experts were not only failed to be recognized but were also questioned. It is a regrettable fact. To this end, some security experts, in order to prove that their predictions and judgments were correct, hid those predictions and conclusions before an accident or disaster occurred, and also failed to advise the relevant authorities and personnel to take effective measures until after the disaster had taken place. Then publish one’s own prediction results and prove the accuracy of those predictions, so that outsiders will acknowledge one’s work. However, such an approach violates the professional ethics of safety professionals, and this safety expert will face severe criticism after the accident. These two situations indeed pose a challenge for security experts. Another scenario is where safety experts fail to make any safety predictions or assessments, or are simply unable to predict potential accidents or disasters; only after such incidents occur do they apply safety science theories to analyze them and explain what happened. More often, what the public sees in the media and on the internet are experts who have no actual connection to the accidents that occur. Due to their job requirements and their involvement in media work, they can only offer comments after an accident happens. It is these people who lead the public to form the misconception that \"safety experts are just those who give their opinions after the fact.\" In fact, this kind of hindsight approach is not entirely useless; it is essential for accident analysis and can serve as experience and examples for preventing accidents in the future. As summarized, it is hoped that everyone will understand the characteristics and nature of safety work, and realize that peace and safety are not something that comes easily; they require costs and sacrifices, among which the contributions of safety experts play an important role. Many people in the media who appear to be security experts are actually not real security experts.
Although I am in charge of production rather than safety, production is closely linked to safety; therefore I have a lot of contact with safety personnel. Sometimes we have differences of opinion or even arguments, but in the end I still follow the safety regulations. This also helps one understand the difficulty of the work done by security personnel. However, the treatment they receive is not ideal, including salary, personnel matters, and level of respect, among other things.
Every field has its mix of good and bad people; some are more inclined to yield to power and dare not speak up or express their opinions
Not everyone wants to do this； In the real world, for most companies, putting safety first is just a slogan ； Speaking of which, safety is important, but in practice it’s pushed to the side ； We have identified and raised many security issues, but they have not received sufficient attention ； Because no safety accidents occurred ； It will not cause people to pay significant attention to it, plus there is a major impact from the social environment ； Just like the Tianjin accident, it’s likely that many people were aware of the safety issues beforehand ； However, due to many other factors not being corrected in a timely manner, it is only afterward that people pay attention to them ； Such hidden dangers certainly still exist around us; they just haven’t turned into accidents ； Insufficiency causes everyone to worry. .
There are very complex social reasons behind this, as can be seen from the safety assessment of certain **chemicals; therefore, it is difficult to ensure safety, and safety cannot be maintained in isolation.
This post was last edited by lvb001 on 2016-2-26 09:11. Generally, what managers care about is the progress of production and the completion of tasks. Although they talk about safety as well, who doesn’t want to achieve results? It’s only quality and safety that become a burden – they require a lot of effort and attention, and managers can’t focus on them. So, although they claim to prioritize safety, their focus remains on production. Nowadays, departments responsible for safety and quality don’t generate any economic benefits; instead, they increase costs. The roles of safety officers and quality inspectors are awkward – managers don’t listen to them, employees find them annoying, and when problems occur, it’s these officers who are blamed. It’s very difficult to run such a system. In China’s current society, where materialism and wealth are emphasized, safety and quality have become mere formalities and scapegoats
What the people upstairs said makes a lot of sense, but how can this problem be solved? One can’t just sit around waiting for an accident to happen~
"Being a “post-hoc analyst” also involves investigating and analyzing the root causes, in order to provide a basis for assigning responsibilities and drawing lessons from past experiences. Of course, prior inspection and prevention are more effective.
Experts are very busy; they don’t have time to focus on it before something happens, but they can study it and leave comments after that~~ Hehe~~
{:3_50:} The recent series of security incidents serve as a warning sign; at the very least, through appropriate analysis, companies can take preventive measures against such incidents.
Experts provide advisory services; they are not held accountable. Consultant, consultant – just ask him and that’s it ； I don’t ask or listen, and I’m too lazy to pay attention. One has to take responsibility for oneself.