[SystemSafety] Risk .... again

Fri Sep 30 04:18:23 CEST 2022

It seems several of the issues that might be of interest in defining
risk and risk management are raised in Les’ post.
I’ll try to abstract away from the subject matter as much as
possible.

1: This is a system with motivated agents, so is risk management
applicable?
Experience with cyber risk management would suggest that assigning
probabilities/metrics to the actions of motivated agents leads to
incorrect calculations.
2: Who is the appropriate duty holder to manage these hazards?

Seems a lot of technical support for the proposition that effective
hazard management should be undertaken with the largest system
boundary that can be drawn. Here we are talking quite literally about
societal level hazards. 
3: Where does individual risk management fit in the hierarchy of
controls?
Is it even personal protective equipment? Are individual hazard
mitigations like disengaging from society or quitting a job realistic
options? Will a risk-based approach really make useful predictions
about the actions of motivated agents, especially at the individual
level?

----- Original Message -----
From: les at chambers.com.au
To:"Peter Bernard Ladkin" , "The System Safety List" 
Cc:
Sent:Fri, 30 Sep 2022 01:29:25 +1000
Subject:Re: [SystemSafety] Risk .... again

 Bernard
 I feel your pain. I empathize but encourage you to crack on. You are
a good 
 soldier for the cause.
 Ive had my own problems explaining risk to none other than the
sisterhood. 
 A while ago a young woman - a SCEGGS girl - went to a party and got
legless 
 drunk.
 SCEGGS is an exclusive girls high school based in Darlinghurst
Sydney. My 
 mother was a SCEGGS girl in the 1920s. 
 All the boys at the party were students at exclusive Sydney boys
schools. One 
 of them decided to have sex with this unfortunate young woman when
she was not 
 in a state to reject or except him. She may not even have been
conscious. 
 Another boy filmed the encounter and the video appeared on the web.
 I know. Jesus wept.
 Time passed and I could not walk past this story. My mother was a
SCEGGS girl 
 for Christ sake and I have three daughters.
 So I composed a 4000 word email on risk management to the
headmistress of 
 SCEGGS. 
 The skinny was as follows:
 1.Young women have no control over the actions of male animals who
feel 
 entitled to hurt them. They do not have the muscle mass to stop them.
 2.They do have control over who they associate with, where they go,
how much 
 they drink, how they dress, and so on. The issue is risk assessment
and risk 
 reduction by having two wines and leaving the party if youre
concerned about 
 the rough trade leering at you.
 3.Conclusion: young women should be taught risk management as a
subject at 
 school.
 I was about to deliver a keynote at a Safety-Critical Systems Club
conference 
 in Sydney so I volunteered to visit SCEGGS and meet with the head
mistress to 
 further explain.
 The response was crickets.
 At the conference I told the story and asked for volunteers to visit
SCEGGS 
 should they change their minds as I am not a Sydney resident. One
lady 
 volunteered. Nothing came of it.
 But theres more. 
 Proud of my attempt to protect young women I related the story to one
of my 
 daughters. A few sentences into the narrative she stood up and
screamed at me 
 for victim blaming. Im still trying to recover my relationship with
that 
 young woman. Since that horrible experience I have noticed exactly
the same 
 response from many intelligent (but risk illiterate) women who I have
had the 
 stupidity to engage in discussion on womens issues. The almost
universal 
 response from the ladies is hand wringing. The narrative is
invariably: A 
 woman should be able to go anywhere she likes, dress anyway she wants
and 
 drink as much as she likes. Followed by, These misogynous pigs should
be 
 trained to respect women. If the lady hasnt left the room and the
screaming 
 is only moderate I try to express furious agreement with these
sentiments but 
 with the caveat that lectures on how boys should be trained will not
protect 
 her daughter at the party she is attending this evening. Risk
management will.
 I note that there was no such reaction from the many professional
women in the 
 room at the Safety-Critical Systems Club conference. Card-carrying
risk 
 managers all.

 From all this I conclude that:
 1.It takes significant training hours to produce a person who
understands and 
 values risk and risk management techniques. Even more to motivate
them to 
 actually use the techniques. It often takes blood. Contrast the
professional 
 women at the conference with the ladies in the wild.
 2.The standards wonks are therefore wasting their time redefining
risk, its 
 a simple concept but hard enough to explain as it is. Let us leave
its 
 definition alone and concentrate the substantial intellectual energy
penned up 
 in these working groups to designing pathways to educate civilians on
what it 
 really means together with how to implement effective risk
management.

 As for me, I refuse to give up. It does my head in to contemplate all
the 
 young women who will be abused tonight for lack of a simple element
of 
 education. If anyone on the list has ideas Id love to hear them. I
have 
 considered stealth. Get my 4000 words published under a female
Pseudonym. My 
 working theory is that women just dont want to hear suggestions from
blokes. 
 Hope Im wrong.

 Back to your pain Bernard. In extremis theres always the Rudyard
Kipling 
 option.

 When youre wounded and left on Afghanistans planes
 And the women come out to cut up what remains
 Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
 And go to your gawd like a soldier

 Cheers
 Les

 > ISO and IEC have finally determined that there is an issue with
figuring out 
 what people mean when 
 > they use the term "risk" technically. They have convened a "joint
task 
 force" to try to sort it out 
 > https://www.iec.ch/ords/f?
 p=103:85:612946702359029::::FSP_ORG_ID,FSP_LANG_ID:28611,25. I am 
 > sceptical they will come up with a good solution, because
candidates for 
 such WGs are self-selecting 
 > (the actual members of the JTF nominated by the National Committees
are not 
 shown. More to the 
 > point, I know some of them :-( ).
 > 
 > They might improve the outcome if the JTF included by invitation at
least 
 some internationally 
 > acknowledged experts with well-regarded publications on the
subject.
 > 
 > But, whatever. There are little things we plebs can do. Here's a
picture 
 caption from a piece in The 
 > Guardian today: "Adults who took part in âregularâ weightlifting
were 
 found to have a 14% lower risk 
 > of death."
 > 
 > Source: 
 >
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/sep/27/exercise-with-weights-
 linked-to-lower-risk-of-early-death-study-says 
 > (no paywall)
 > 
 > So, folks, go out and buy yourselves some weights and use them. It
gives you 
 a 16% chance of 
 > immortality. But what I think is more significant is the
crystal-ball 
 technology the investigators 
 > seem to be using to judge the immortality. I'd be keen to know more
about 
 that.
 > 
 > PBL
 > 
 > Prof. i.R. Dr. Peter Bernard Ladkin, Bielefeld, Germany
 > Tel+msg +49 (0)521 880 7319 www.rvs-bi.de

 --

 Les Chambers

 les at chambers.com.au

 +61 (0)412 648 992

 _______________________________________________
 The System Safety Mailing List
 systemsafety at TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE
 Manage your subscription:
https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/mailman/listinfo/systemsafety

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/pipermail/systemsafety/attachments/20220930/421828e9/attachment-0001.html>