· Home· Table of Contents
· Aerospace
Thinking-Feeling - Extraversion-Introversion -Testing Without Self-Destructing
G. L. McDonald M.E. B.Sc.Geoff McDonald & Associates Pty Ltd
Australia.
Contact
| · Home · Table of Contents · Aerospace | Thinking-Feeling - Extraversion-Introversion -Testing Without Self-DestructingG. L. McDonald M.E. B.Sc.Geoff McDonald & Associates Pty Ltd Australia. Contact |
Damage to people from work in Australia is massive; 6-8 killed and 137 permanently disabled each day, seven days per week. Each year hundreds of thousands, if not millions of decisions are, or are not made, and form another link in the chain leading to mutilation of lives. Carl Jung's psychological attitudes of Extraversion and Introversion and his opposed functions of Thinking and Feeling/Valuing give insight into whether the decisions are made on the basis of external (object) or internal (subject) characteristics and whether the decisions are likely to be from reasoned thinking or from value judgements. In work health and safety, all too often value judgements corrupt reasoned thinking and introverted subjectivity plays too large a part. Physical non-destructive testing requires extraverted thinking so decisions are reasoned on characteristics of the object being tested. The final (higher up) decision may, however, be an introverted feeling/valuing judgement. Examples of non-destructive testing used for safety where the testing has been corrupted by introverted feeling/valuing are given. Understanding of Jung's model helps understand some of the frustrations and corruptions of thinking which downgrade decision making.
There is reason for grave concern about work health and safety in Australia. The amount of damage to people from work is massive and the evidence that the situation is improving is unconvincing, and some suggest, worsening.
137 people are permanently disabled each day, seven days a week, 52 weeks of the year as a result of work in Australia. 6-8 people die each day as a result of having worked.
The combined cost of fatality and permanent disability is 82% of the total cost of damage to people from work, i.e. 80.5% from permanent disability and 1.5% from fatality.
The Industry Commission (1995), indicates that the total cost of damage to people from work in Australia in 1992/93 was $20 billion. In that year, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (1996) figures indicate that the contribution to gross domestic product of the Mining Industry was $18.4 billion and Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery combined was $17.2 billion. Defence expenditure was $9.2 billion and the budget for the Queensland State Government, was $9.8 billion. Average monthly retail sales were $8 billion and the cost of road crashes requiring at least a Doctor's treatment was $3.9 billion.
By any criteria, the amount of damage is massive and severely disabling not only to the individuals killed or permanently impaired, but also to Australia and Australian Industry. The cost of this massive damage is carried 30% by the employer, 30% by the employee, and 40% by the general community mainly via the Commonwealth Government's Social Securities. The employee cost is carried predominantly by the 50,000 permanently disabled each year and the 2500 who die each year. The total loss from personal damage accounts for 5% of Gross Domestic Product. By any reckoning, this is a massive amount of damage and loss for a nation to carry, let alone the loss and anguish carried by the permanently disabled, and the close family, friends, relatives and community of those who die. In their costing, the Industry Commission made no allowance for pain, suffering and anguish.
For a considerable number of years now State Governments throughout Australia have adopted Robens' style legislation and operate under the umbrella of the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission. To that extent there is a similarity. There will be individual differences on how they operate.
Since permanent disability accounts for 80.5% of the total cost of damage, permanent disability provides an effective measure in the change in the level of health and safety at work. Only New South Wales Workcover produces figures which are readily available to enable an assessment to be made. Their figures show that between the year 1991 - 1992 and the year 1998 - 1999 the rate (per 1000 wage and salary earners) of damaging people at work has changed according to severity of outcome as follows:
| 25% decrease
| Double
| More then double
| Possible slight decline
| | (Not convincing)
| |
If these official figures are correct, they show a worsening of health and safety at work. This is within a legislative regime where self regulation, compliance and monitoring is encouraged with the aid of hazard identification, risk assessment and auditing. It is time to take stock, look at the broad picture, and question what we are doing and determine what we should be doing. When you are in the middle of a situation and are trying to understand it, it is useful to use basic theory from an apparently unrelated area, to step outside and look in from the outside to gain a new perspective. In this case it is useful to look at the work of the Swiss psychoanalyst Carl Jung, use some of his models and apply them to particular situations related to the non-destructive testing. Then, draw the relevance of all these things together.
Psychological Types was originally published in German in 1921. It was translated into English in 1923 with the extracts herein taken from a 1971 publication. To describe psychological types Jung (1971) used two attitudes, 'Extraversion' and 'Introversion' and four functions set in two opposing pairs, 'Thinking and Feeling' and 'Sensation and Intuition'. The Extraversion and Introversion in crude terms is whether the person is turned outwards or turned inwards. The following is part of his definition of Extraversion and part of his definition of Introversion.
Everyone in the extraverted state thinks, feels, and acts in relation to the object, and moreover in a direct and clearly observable fashion, so that no doubt can remain about his positive dependence on the object. In a sense, therefore, extraversion is a transfer of interest from subject to object. If it is an extraversion of thinking, the subject thinks himself into the object; if an extraversion of feeling, he feels himself into it. In extraversion there is a strong, if not exclusive, determination by the object. Extraversion is active when it is intentional, and passive when the object compels it, i.e., when the object attracts the subject's interest of its own accord, even against his will. When extraversion is habitual, we speak of the extraverted type (q.v.).
Everyone whose attitude is introverted thinks, feels, and acts in a way that clearly demonstrates that the subject is the prime motivating factor and that the object is of secondary importance. Introversion may be intellectual or emotional, just as it can be characterised by sensation or intuition (q.v.). It is active when the subject voluntarily shuts himself off from the object, passive when he is unable to restore to the object the libido streaming back from it. When introversion is habitual, we speak of an introverted type (q.v.).
From these definitions it can be seen that those involved in non-destructive testing will be extraverted and probably normally actively extraverted in their normal work activities. However, when the results of their work are passed onto others, it is not necessarily the case that these people will be extraverted. They may be introverted, but if extraverted, may be attending to other objects, for example, financial matters.
In explaining his four functions, Jung gave the following description:
"The essential function of sensation is to establish that something exists, thinking tells us what it means, feeling what its value is, and intuition surmises whence it comes and goes. Sensation and intuition I call irrational functions, because they are both concerned simply with what happens and with actual or potential realities. Thinking and feeling, being discriminatory functions, are rational. Sensation... rules out simultaneous intuitive activity, since the latter is not concerned with the present but is rather a sixth sense of hidden possibilities, and therefore should not allow itself to be unduly influenced by existing reality. In the same way, thinking is opposed to feeling, because thinking should not be influenced or deflected from its purpose by feeling values, just as feeling is vitiated by too much reflection".
Vitiate = impair the quality or efficiency of, corrupt, debase, contaminate, make invalid, or ineffectual.
In our present culture, the meaning of "feeling" must be made clear.
It does not mean the sensation of touch - that belongs to sensation. It also does not equate to emotion. In the Jungian context feeling refers strongly to "valuing" and the term "feeling/valuing" will be used throughout. Thinking involves logical rational reasoning which leads to a conclusion. In the present context it deals with veridical information. Feeling involves a judgement of value, e.g. whether the person feels something is "good" or "beautiful". In thinking, judgement is reasoned on the basis of the material available, nowhere overstepping it. Feeling judgement is made on the basis of how the person feels about the material. A thinker tries to make all his activities dependent on intellectual conclusions. Thinking and feeling/valuing are opposed to each other. In Jung's words, thinking vitiates (corrupts) feeling and thinking is deflected from its purpose by feeling. He states:
"But one can feel "correctly" only when feeling is not disturbed by anything else. Nothing disturbs feeling so much as thinking." Similarly, thinking is disturbed by feeling.
The author of this paper found it relatively easy to understand the thinking function, but had great difficulty in understanding the feeling function. The following quotation is actually a number of separate sentences taken from the 'definitions' section of 'Psychological Types' where approximately three pages is devoted to the definition of 'Feeling'.
"Feeling is primarily a process that takes place between the ego and a given content. It imparts to the content a definite value in the sense of acceptance or rejection ('like' or 'dislike'). Feeling may be in every respect independent of external stimuli though it allies itself with every sensation. Hence feeling is a kind of judgement, differing from intellectual judgement in that its aim is not to establish conceptual relations but to set up subjective criteria of acceptance or rejection. Valuation by feeling extends to every content of consciousness.
Naturally the above definitions do not give the essence of feeling - they only describe it from the outside. The intellect proves incapable of formulating the real nature of feeling in conceptual terms, since thinking belongs to a category incommensurable with feeling".
We are all capable of using all four functions of which only two - Thinking and Feeling are being considered in this paper. The importance is to recognise which function is being used, and to use each function where it is most usefully or appropriately applied.
One of the main stays of the current approach to safety is Risk Assessment. It is likely that many of you have been called on to make Risk Assessments or to make contributions to an overall Risk Assessment.
The principal of Risk Assessment is perfectly sound, if the correct conceptual understanding exists and if there is information available to enable the thinking function to produce a rational judgement. However, in many cases this does not occur because it is not possible. Some of the conceptual understanding is deficient. For example two models are put forward for use: Fine's Nomogram, and a Risk Priority Chart. Fine's Nomogram is sometimes termed 'The Risk Assessment Calculator' and for each risk it requires-
These three judgements result in a Risk Score. The Risk Priority Chart looks at the consequences and the likelihood of that happening, so the probability and exposure are combined, into a likelihood.
Fatal and Permanently Disabling damage to people at work are rare occurrences. In New South Wales, a fatality occurs once in just under 40, 000 person years, and a permanent disability in once in 300 person years. There is a very large variety in the way in which people are killed or permanently disabled. What knowledge does the person doing the Risk Assessment have of the probability or the likelihood of damage occurring, and of how severe the damage can be. In a minority of cases, this is relatively straight forward. In the vast majority of cases, people simply have insufficient information to enable them to use the thinking function to make a judgement. It is interesting that Jung in his definition of Feeling includes the idea that the feeling function "imparts to the content a definite value in the sense of the acceptance or rejection". There is a great deal of anecdotal evidence to suggest that risk assessments are frequently adjusted to achieve acceptance by the person the risk assessor reports to.
While the principle of risk assessment is sound there are numerous problems in its use. These problems revolve around lack of knowledge, ignorance of available information, and lack of information which combine to cripple the thinking function. With its penchant for using its value to determine "acceptance" or "rejection", the feeling function takes over. The outcome of the risk assessment must then suit the values of the risk assessor or those the assessor reports to. The use of models or prescribed methods of making the risk assessment provide a thinking façade to enable the feeling/valuing function to vitiate (corrupt or debase) thinking. And remember, Jung said that feeling is an entirely subjective process which in every respect may be independent of external stimuli and sets up subjective criteria of acceptance and rejection.
Two examples illustrate. Both show ignorance of the mechanisms of injury and therefore the potential for fatality and permanent disability. Both also show shallow thinking on exposure and use numbers to give a misleading impression of thinking. Start by thinking in terms of goals of fewer than one fatality in 100,000 designated years and fewer than one permanent disability in 30,000 designated years. Designated may refer to person, machine, (e.g. tractor), or work role, e.g. "welder". In the 1960s and 1970s there was one death per 3000 tractor years - 33 times the target figure.
In the first case, 1,200,000 vehicles had unloaded waste into a surge pit at a transfer station. An estimated 2,000,000 people had been involved in unloading these vehicles. Ten had fallen into the pit and two of these were treated at a hospital casualty unit. The assessment indicated that there had been a fall at the rate of 1 in 200,000, a casualty rate of 1 in 1,000,000 and a fatality rate of fewer than 1 in 2,000,000. The probability for staff of an occurrence was seen as less than "conceivable (but very unlikely)" and more than "Practically Impossible". For users the probability was "conceivable (but very unlikely)". For both, the possible consequence was seen as "Casualty Treatment".
The second case involves a high-speed water slide. The risk assessment was less involved. The number of rides down the slide and the number of "Incident Reports" completed were used to calculate the risk of injury. Figures varied between .0000189% and .0001158%. The figures were actually ratios and not percentages and gave the probability of an "Incident Report" being filled out. The figures looked very low, are relatively unintelligible and mean more if quoted as once in 52,825 rides to once in 8631 rides.
While there was slight differentiation of severity in the first case (no injury or casualty treatment) there was none in the second. Both confined their assessment to the installation history. In the first case there were 18 unloading bays (9 on each side) in use for 3.5 years giving 63 bay years. The fall is over a 2.5m vertical concrete wall onto rubbish or concrete and potentially into the path of a wheel dozer operating in the 5m wide pit.
The probability of a fatality, quadriplegia, paraplegia or brain damage from a fall (sometimes going over backwards) in 100,000 bay years (over 1500 times the sample size) would be exceedingly high as 15,000 falls could be expected.
The water slide involved entry into water at around 60 k/ph. It could result in penetration and rupture of body cavities and cases where one leg was torn back and the function of the pelvic girdle severely disrupted, were reported. The number of cases of actual or potential permanent disability reported from 26 water slide years leads to the conclusion that the potential for damage over 100,000 slide years was horrendous.
In both examples the number of uses, with each use being for a very short time, generated numbers which indicated a low probability of an occurrence. Ignorance of or ignoring the mechanisms of damage avoided recognition of a high potential for fatality or permanent disability. These combined to give an unrealistic assessment and resulted in relative acceptance of the situations. The use of bay years and water slide years gives a very different picture.
These examples are not intended to be critical of those involved but are presented as a condemnation of a process foisted on the community and industry without the development and communication of the content (knowledge and information) which is necessary to enable the process to work. There are many other ways in which the feeling/valuing function vitiates the thinking function in risk assessment. Even when risk assessment, formal or informal, determines action should be taken, lack of veridical knowledge results in ineffective action - e.g. training in lifting techniques (straight back, bent knees) instead of limiting the bending moment on the spine.
These two are interesting examples of the thinking function being deflected from its purpose by feeling values. The use of numbers necessarily involves a thinking function. In these examples, the thinking function is distorted to handling numbers in such a way that the needs of the feeling function will be met. The thinking function will produce figures which are acceptable to the feeling function, until an outside influence alters the feeling/valuing function.
In the 1960s and 1970s there were approximately 100 fatalities with tractors each year in Australia, and there was a population of 300,000 tractors. This equates to a fatality once every 3000 tractor years. The New South Wales figures of a fatality once every 40,000 person years is taken as a starting point. While the goal must be to eliminate fatality and permanent disability, it could be argued that an intermediate goal would be fewer than 1 fatality every 100,000 person years, and fewer than 1 permanent disability every 30,000 person years, or designated years.
If there is one fatality every 100,000 designated years and there are a wide variety of fatalities possible, an enormous number of years of experience is necessary to know what can happen. A person from their own experience cannot develop enough knowledge, so the knowledge has to be brought in from elsewhere.
While the author's knowledge of non-destructive testing is limited, it is an area he has admired considerably and particularly the way in which objective information, or in Jung's term 'Object' information is identified and brought to bear. Therefore your activities strongly aid the thinking function.
In this sense you are concerned with the truth and the truth, in terms of Gallegos' (1991) observation, "...and by truth I mean the best possible alignment that words can have with the way the universe works", with words of course including numbers. The reality is that both the Thinking function and the Feeling/Valuing function play a role in many of the judgements that are made, relative to the safety of persons or equipment. There would be considerable variation to the extent of the influence of the Thinking function and the Feeling/Valuing function on each judgement. In assessing a judgement a major consideration would be the influence of the Feeling/Valuing judgement, and which way it interacted with the Thinking function. There are judgements where use of the feeling/valuing function is entirely appropriate. However in controlling the physical energies of the universe, the use of the thinking function is necessary.
An attempt has been made to use "thinking" figures to describe the incidence of damage in one major part of safety, "falls of persons". Unfortunately information on permanent disability is not available from most public sources.
Australian hospital statistics, published by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare gives information on injury and poisonings. Table 1 gives the figures for 1998/99.
| External Cause | Number | ||
| Falls | 112,181 | ||
| Complications of medical and surgical care | 66,432 | ||
| Exposure to mechanical forces | 64,556 | ||
| Transport accidents | 49,318 | ||
| Other external causes of accidental injury | 33,656 | ||
| Intentional self-harm | 20,935 | ||
| Assault | 18,481 | ||
| Accidental poisoning | 13,951 | ||
| Exp. Smoke, fire, flames, hot substances | 5,816 | ||
| Exp. Venomous plants, animals, forces of nature | 4,642 | ||
| Events of undetermined intent | 2,133 | ||
| Exp. Electricity, radiation, extreme temperature/pressure | 1,560 | ||
| Other accidental threats to breathing | 859 | ||
| Sequellae and supplementary factors | 713 | ||
| Accidental drowning and submersion | 590 | ||
| Legal intervention and operations of war | 53 | ||
| Total | 395,876 | ||
| Table 1: Figures for 1998/99 | |||
It shows that by far the largest number of cases admitted to hospital is from falls. More details of the types of falls come from figures from Queensland hospitals as set out in Table 2.
| Type of Fall | ICD9 Code |
(a)1998-1999# Episodes |
(b) 1998 Deaths |
| Fall on or from steps | 880 | 1,820 | 11 |
| Fall on or from ladders or scaffolding | 881 | 754 | 4 |
| Fall from or out of building or other structure | 882 | 787 | 2 |
| Fall into hole or other opening in surface | 883 | 165 | 2 |
| Other fall from one level to another | 884 | 5,824 | 7 |
| Fall on same level from slipping, tripping or stumbling | 885 | 8,173 | 18 |
| Fall on same level from collision, pushing, or shoving,by or with other person | 886 | 2,063 | 1 |
| Fracture, cause unspecified | 887 | 1,910 | 125 |
| Other and unspecified fall | 888 | 10,096 | 59 |
| Total | 31,592 | 229 | |
| Table 2: Type of Fall Episodes (Queensland Hospitals 1998-99)and Deaths (Queensland Residents 1998) | |||
Of approximately 19, 500 cases where details of the fall are known, over 8000 involve falls from the same level from slipping, tripping or stumbling. 18 fatalities are also involved with this group. From the author's own work it is known that there is a strong involvement of permanent disability and that slipping is the most common source of the loss of control. Very simply, the grip between the shoe sole or heel and the floor surface breaks down and the person loses control of their foot so it goes further than they expected. In 1993, Australian Standard and New Zealand Standard - 3661.1 Slip Resistance of Pedestrian Surfaces, Part 1, was published and was in review in 1997. The revised standard was published in 1999 as AS/NZS 4586 Slip Resistance Classification of New Pedestrian Surface Materials.
It is understood that the committee which drafted the original standard, was first convened to develop a standard for the glue to fix ceramic tiles to concrete floor surfaces. As a result of their combining, the need for a standard for a method of measuring slip resistance of floor surfaces, was identified. After co-opting other members, the committee is understood to have turned its attention to the slip resistance of pedestrian surfaces. The original standard required the use of two different machines. One for dry surfaces, used a slider moving at constant speed across a surface to measure the ratio of the pull force to the vertical load. For wet surfaces a pendulum tester was used where the loss of height on the swing-through gave an indication of the resistance to the swinging.
There are a number of difficulties with the test methods. Only one aspect will be discussed here. Both test machines used as the slider 4S rubber, (simulated standard shoe sole rubber), which was developed by the Rubber and Plastics Research Association of Great Britain. Unfortunately, it is not clear on how this rubber relates to shoe soles and heel materials in use.
Standards Australia's Internal Journal - The Australian Standard (June 1997) has a section called 'In the Pipeline' in which is discussed the revision of AS/NZS3661.1 - 1993. The following quotation is taken from the article:
"Four S rubber was chosen as the slider for both test methods, and it was agreed that floor surfaces should have a COF (coefficient of friction) of 0.4. Although many believed 0.7 to be more appropriate, 0.4 was adopted to facilitate international trade.
There is ample evidence in the author's view that a Coefficient of Traction of 0.5 is required. It is interpreted that the belief that 0.7 was required for the testing was to allow for the lack of knowledge of how 4S rubber related to the material in shoe soles and heels. In fact, the standard requires that the mean Coefficient of Friction is not to be less that 0.4 and no specimen in that sample shall be less than 0.35. It should be pointed out that people slip on the least value. People are quite likely to slip on a grip of 0.35.
The standard can be accepting materials which in some cases would give the Coefficient of Traction of 0.35 even for the 4S rubber. A good deal of critical comment was generated. A revision document was issued for public comment in October 1998, and it included the following statement, under Section 2 - Application:
The indication of the test apparatus relates to the slip resistance potential of the surface tested in the test environment. It does not contemplate shoe sole materials, characteristics of individual gaits, or other factors that may contribute to slips. However, a factor of safety has been provided. (see Harper et al).
Slip resistance is a characteristic of two materials, not a single material. If a test does not contemplate shoe sole materials, what does it represent? The term 'immaculate friction' comes to mind. The problem inherent with the use of this standard, is that the standard can see a material as slip resistant, when the person in a particular type of footwear or bare feet can slip readily on the surface. If someone has then slipped on that surface and suffered permanently disabling injuries or death, any attempt at gaining compensation has the potential of being thwarted by the defence that the pedestrian surface was chosen as a result of tests done in accordance with AS/NZS 3661.1 of 1993.
Following the comment of choosing a value of 0.4 to facilitate international trade, it is possible for overseas manufacturers to profit at the expense of permanently disabled Australians. The actual discussion and understanding within a committee of Standards of Australia, can only be known by those who are present. Some overall possibilities can be considered from the composition of the committee, and what comes out of the committee. The 1993 standard was prepared by Joint Technical Committee BD/44, Fixing of Ceramic Tiles.
The following interests were represented on committee BD/44 at that time:
AS/NZS 4586:1999 - Slip Resistance Classification of New Pedestrian Surface Materials, presents the latest thinking.
It has increased the number of tests to include inclined ramp tests for wet/barefoot and oil-wet using a shoe sole specified in both material and profile.
The standard includes a definition of friction
"an intrinsic property of the two interfacing, interacting surfaces resulting from their micro and macro-roughness, inter and intra-molecular forces of attraction and repulsion, and their visco-elastic properties."
The standard includes the statement:
"The indication of the test apparatus relates to the slip resistance potential of the surface tested in the test environment. It does not contemplate shoe sole materials, characteristics of individual gaits, or other factors that may contribute to slips."
How can an intrinsic property of two interfacing, interacting surfaces be determined by not contemplating one of the materials?
The new standard continues the use of 4S rubber (IRHD Hardness 96±2) and also allows the use of TRRL rubber (IRHD Hardness 55±5) and the specified shoe sole (IRHD Hardness 72±5). The TRRL rubber is used only with the pendulum (wet test) and has traditionally been used for clay and concrete pavers.
The results of the tests are then to be classified and the results given as follows, according to the values determined by each test method:
| Wet Pendulum | V, W, X, Y or Z |
| Dry Friction | F or G |
| Wet Barefoot Ramp | A, B or C |
| Oil Wet Ramp | R9, R10, R11, R12, or R13 |
Slipping is ultimately the result of exceeding the friction available between the barefoot or shoe sole/heel material and the surface on which the person is moving, with or without a contaminant present. Why are the results not reported in terms of a coefficient of friction or traction. Does the use of the alphabet supplemented by numbers, help the decision making process or is it a means of obscuring the test results to diminish the influence of the thinking function and increase the influence of the feeling/valuing function.
The whole role and function of slip resistance testing must be questioned. Slippery floor surfaces are essential to a large number of permanent disabilities and to fatalities. Whose feeling/valuing function does the standard serve? It provides methods which may have admirable reliability. The validity, however, has to be strongly questioned until the role of shoe sole/heel material is adequately included. The determination of slip resistance brings a complex of factors into play. The wide variety of shoe sole and heel materials in use is a fact of life and is one the consumer has to cope with so must a standard if it is to be valid. The thinking function must not be corrupted or debased.
Two examples, risk assessment and slip testing, have been given to illustrate the interplay between the thinking function and the feeling/valuing function.
A further example has been involved in the development of some of the Codes of Practice which influence work health and safety. When Worksafe Australia (1990) prepared the "National Standard for Manual Handling and National Code of Practice for Manual Handling", there was individual research and coalesced research findings which recognised the bending moment on the lumbar spine as the best quantification of loading on that structure - the most frequently damaged. Ruptured lumbar discs underlie the majority of permanently disabled backs. The control of damage to the central compression carrying structure in the trunk, the spine, was advocated by limiting the bending moment produced by the load, thereby limiting the compression developed in the spine by the action of the back muscles acting to resist the load. Spinal damage is simply the result of the structure being over loaded. The annular rings surrounding the gelatinous disc centre fail from the inside out. There is no in-built non-destructive sensing mechanism (nerve endings) in the inner two thirds of the annular layers. Progressive failure, akin to fatigue failure of metals, occurs until the outer layers of the annulus bulge or rupture. This brings the onset of pain and dysfunction.
The National standard gave no recognition of bending moment, gave ambiguous information on weight and numerous vague requirements. Weight is of course only one of the two factors required to determine the bending moment when lifting and needs to be multiplied by the horizontal distance from the lumbar spine to the centre of gravity of an object when lifted by one person or to the hands in a determinate shared lift, i.e. one where the load on the hands can be determined.
Here a group of people have eliminated a clear thinking function quantity, bending moment, and required more subjective (feeling/valuing) judgements. This is an example of consignorance - the result of a group of people using consensus to combine their collective ignorance while ignoring a significant body of scientific (thinking function) knowledge. The tragedy of consignorance is that it gives ignorance authority. Is consignorance the result of the feeling/valuing function overriding the thinking function?
Thinking is concerned with truth, feeling/valuing with goodness. If truth is taken as the best alignment words can have with the way the universe works, it follows that in preventing physical and personal damage from energies of the universe the thinking function must be used.
When the feeling/valuing function corrupts or overrides the thinking function there is reason for concern. Carl Jung, as quoted earlier, indicated that feeling is an entirely subjective process which may be in every respect independent of external stimuli.
Where a judgement, which reflects on work health and safety, has been developed by the thinking function and is then negated by another judgement, determine whether the negating judgement is produced by another thinking judgement, a feeling/valuing judgement or both. Consider feeling/valuing judgements carefully and determine the feeling values which underlie the judgement. These feeling values can then be brought into the open and confronted.
While financial reasons will often be presented as a negating factor they are usually mechanisms for favoring the feeling values of one party over another.
A person reading this paper could come to the conclusion that the thinking function is regarded as being superior to the feeling valuing function. Nothing could be further from the truth. Each function Thinking-Feeling/Valuing and Intuition-Sensation should be regarded as equally important. Highly competent people argue (and argue convincingly) that the feeling/valuing function is used for too little in our western communities. A healthier and fuller use of the feeling/valuing function directed towards human kind and our universe would see more effort diverted to health and safety and environment. However, when dealing with physical energies, the thinking function must prevail, uncorrupted.
The best advice that can be given is to think where thinking is required and value where feeling/valuing is required. Do not let one corrupt the other.
| © AINDT , created by NDT.net | |Home| |Top| |