Creating Passionate Users: "Safe is risky, risky is safe"

« Changing the user experience without changing the product | Main | Does the US suck at design? »

"Safe is risky, risky is safe" - Seth Godin

Safeorrisky

Here's a literal example of Seth Godin's safe/risky mantra, from yesterday (grabbed from the Colorado Daily, a local Boulder paper).

The guy in red was rock climbing (the risky thing) while his parked car (the safe thing) was demolished by a gigantic boulder.

I pinned the picture to my wall as a metaphorical reminder of Seth's quote. The temptation to play it safe in my work is oh so powerful, and under many circumstances, oh so dangerous.

(But there's still no way in hell I'm climbing anything but one of those rubbery faux walls (with nice color-coded newbie routes) at the climbing gym, with top ropes and all those bouncy mats at the bottom in case your belayer is an idiot.)

Belay on! (and never ever park under a big boulder ; )

[Update disclaimer warning label for the critics (not meant or needed for my regular readers): this is a metaphor! "Safe is risky, risky is safe" is not meant as a literal fact... it's a reminder to challenge our assumptions and default/conventional thinking, given our modern context.]

Posted by Kathy on July 9, 2006 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b44369e200d8342a397153ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Safe is risky, risky is safe" - Seth Godin:

» Avalanche from The Bell Curve Scar
Kathy Sierra makes a good point: sometimes, words arent enough. The gravitational pull from “play it safe” world is powerful. An image usually provides better lift than mere words. For maximum lift, use multi-sensory input – involving i... [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 10, 2006 8:15:59 AM

» Safe is Risky, Risky is Safe from Arbitrary Deranged Digressions
Creating Passionate Users: "Safe is risky, risky is safe" - Seth Godin Very ironic picture.... [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 19, 2006 9:37:38 AM

Comments

Very powerful imagery and the thought behind it. If everything we know is safe is not, and everything we think is risky is not, do we really know anything for sure?

Posted by: Phil Gerbyshak | Jul 9, 2006 2:20:42 PM

Phil:"If everything we know is safe is not, and everything we think is risky is not, do we really know anything for sure?"

The problem seems to be that not everything we think is risky turns out to be safe and vice-versa. If only we could separate the actually-yes-indeed risks from the appears risky, but in the current context is actually safer risks.

(and doing what we can to reduce the risks we decide are worth taking.)

So, no, I'd say we really have no clue ; )
But it's got to be better to at least keep questioning whether our assumptions about risk/safety might be all wrong (including assumptions that once were true but no longer are...)

Posted by: Kathy Sierra | Jul 9, 2006 3:47:32 PM

And exactly how are you supposed to avoid parking under boulders (or, for that matter, *driving* under boulders) when you live in Colorado?

Posted by: Aggie | Jul 9, 2006 3:52:22 PM

Aqqie: Well, given that the city I live in isn't named "Boulder" for no reason, you have an excellent point ; )
My advice was to not park under the really BIG ones. As for *driving*, I cross my fingers all the way up Highway 6 (where this picture was taken). I've been on that road more than once just before--or after--something's come down and closed it. Coming from LA (no falling rocks, other than that earthquake thing), I thought the "falling rocks" signs were kind of cute until I realized that by "rocks", they meant "house-sized chunks of granite"

Posted by: Kathy Sierra | Jul 9, 2006 4:26:13 PM

I wish I'd contribute omething meaningful - instead, I'll just be the annoying guy who lets you know that your "Seth Godin" link goes to Colorado Daily, too.

I assume most of your readers do have SG in their feed list anyways, so nobody bothered ;)

Posted by: Robert 'Groby' Blum | Jul 9, 2006 4:28:29 PM

The problem with these simplistic mantras is that they give simplistic people simplistic ideas.

Is it risky to drive with a seatbelt? You'd have to work awfully hard to construct a scenario where that's the case. Is it safe to drive aggressively or under the influence?

And when you're imposing the risk on someone else, then ethics dominate the landscape.

Posted by: Bob | Jul 9, 2006 4:40:44 PM

> If everything we know is safe is not,

Of course that's not the case. And even in this case it is arguable (to put it mildly) whether sitting in a parked car, or climbing a rock is the riskier thing to do. Just because after the fact one risk realized and the other did not, doesn't affect the a priori risks. (risk != outcome)

Or to put it another way: Eatings nuts can kill someone with an allergy, and you can survive shooting yourself in the face (Both have happened), yet still it is pretty clear, which of the two is the riskier activity to engange in (I'll take the nuts any day).

This is only in response to the comments. Of course I know that the saying is to be understood metaphorically (and I agree with the content). And the image serves very well to underline and emphasize the idea.

Posted by: Sencer | Jul 9, 2006 4:42:49 PM

Bob:
"The problem with these simplistic mantras is that they give simplistic people simplistic ideas."

There is no problem because...
our regular readers are anything but "simplistic."

They're more than capable of distinguishing a metaphor from a literal fact.

These kinds of "simplistic mantras" are often the most elegant (metphorical!!) tool for challenging our default/conventional thinking... the readers here do not process things so superficially (and literally)... but perhaps you haven't been here enough to get to know and respect them the way I do.

Posted by: Kathy Sierra | Jul 9, 2006 5:30:10 PM

Robert: Thanks for telling me! Fixing it now...

Sence: thanks for reinforcing that this is a metaphor...

Posted by: Kathy Sierra | Jul 9, 2006 5:32:10 PM

really great picture

Posted by: jr | Jul 9, 2006 11:19:27 PM

I have recently been challenged by this very idea. I just moved halfway across the country and now that I'm here I felt like moving back. Yet, the real risk would be to return to the familiar which will be much more of a risk, since how I lived there wasn't working.

Posted by: John A. Sansone | Jul 10, 2006 6:31:09 AM

The picture and event you've chosen as a metaphor is also a reminder that, in spite of our detailed planning to mitigate risk, events will happen as they will, and all we really have at the end of the day is whether or not we were true to our own passions.

Posted by: Jeff Carr | Jul 10, 2006 8:24:42 AM

1. What if you scrimp and save year after year in order to provide a plush retirement... only to die of a heart attack at age 42?

2. What if you live for today? You save very little, spend a majority of your paycheck living an enjoyable life day-by-day. By retirement age, you have no nest egg. You take a minimum wage job to make ends meet and spend the "golden years" of your life paying for the first 60.

3. What if you live moderately, but take worthwhile risks? You enjoy an occasional treat in life, but typically save for what is important. In pursuing what is important, you find something so worthwhile that you decide to risk it all. Then it flies... or fails. Either way, you continue to pursue what is important.

All risks are not equal. It's the one's you believe in that matter.

Those are the one's that are worth it whether they fly or fail.

Posted by: DUST!N | Jul 10, 2006 4:53:24 PM

Great point Dustin, and to further expand it, one person's risk, is another person's safety.

Case in point: Seth's 'Safe is risky, risky is safe' post was his way of saying that he was being 'risky' by not allowing his community to have input on his site, and that if he had allowed comments on his site, that it would be the 'safe' way out.

Posted by: Mack Collier | Jul 10, 2006 10:11:50 PM

This discussion has made me think about the somewhat absurd lengths to which we go to protect children from risk: padded surfaces in outdoor playgrounds (no hard landings, ever!), car seats and boosters for kids as old as 11 (isolated in the back seat, always talking to the back of the parent's head), helmets and knee pads for scooter-riding, etc. Enter the law of unintended consequences: kids who never experience skinned knees never learn the true meaning of cause and effect, and may eventually take greater--and stupider risks--because they haven't learned from incremental experiences. Dubner and Levitt of "Freakonomics" take on this subject both in the book and in their famous expose of car-seat ineffectiveness (NY Times, 7-10-05, available in the archive).

Posted by: Nancy Friedman | Jul 11, 2006 1:12:23 PM

Safe is risky? Risky is safe? All sounds very Taoist to me :)

Posted by: Seamus Anthony | Jul 11, 2006 4:12:45 PM

I don't think it's so much a case of risky being safe, but more that security is at best an illusion. Trying to achieve total safety, trying to desperately hold onto what you have, wrapping everything in cotton wool, exercising such caution that opportunities are lost, just doesn't work. Change is universal, impermanence the only guarantee, so there's little value in taking no risks ever. You evaluate the risks and the possible benefits as quick as possible, and then make the leap of faith. Some risks are just plain stupid, but if you eliminate just those and accept the rest, you free yourself from a lot of anxiety.

Posted by: Matt Moran | Jul 12, 2006 5:22:35 AM

I'm reminded of a quote:

"A ship is safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
William Shedd

Posted by: Joe McCarthy | Jul 12, 2006 8:58:39 AM

As usual, it's a picture that provides the reminder I need. Looking for a new twist while staying aware that it's the everyday safe path isn't always the right choice just makes sense.

This image will be going on my wall as well.

Posted by: Susan Reynolds | Jul 12, 2006 10:43:46 PM

Just so you know -- a kid at one of those climbing wall places near where I work fell and broke his leg quite badly. So... don't think you're safe just because you think you are. Aw heck, you know what I mean.

Posted by: George Girton | Jul 14, 2006 4:54:27 PM

George: You just HAD to go and and add recursion to this in a way that's going to make my head hurt all night... ; )
Excellent point...you just... never... know.

Posted by: Kathy Sierra | Jul 14, 2006 5:05:12 PM

Obviously stuff like this happens everywhere, but I DO get a kick that this happens in a city that is busy spending huge amounts of $$'s trying to make everything "safe".

Chris Adams
Boulder, CO

Posted by: Chris Adams | Jul 27, 2006 10:16:45 PM