As an interesting aside, I recently (last night, actually) found out that my wife's best friend, who is pregnant at the moment, is an anti-vaxxer. My instinct is to come at her with a bunch of data and facts, but I'm aware that it is probably a losing strategy. One of the earliest interactions kleinbl00 and I had on Hubski was a discussion about the anti-vax movement, because his wife is a naturopath who deals with OB/GYN and therefore has lots of experience with these types. I'm looking for advice from anyone who's dealt with reeducating ignorant, scared, willfully intransigent, types. I'm a scientist, and I think I come off as condescending to some people, especially those who have strongly held but wrong ideas. So, KB and anyone else who's knowledgeable on this topic, hit me. What's the best approach? I assume fear is the primary motivator for being skeptical, no? But fear of what? How to allay those fears, etc?
This discussion is relevant to your interests. So the first thing to keep in mind is that "anti-vax" is not a monolithic camp. It's a constellation of complimentary suspicions and tribal allegiances. The second thing to keep in mind is that the tribal allegiances matter far more than the suspicions. By keeping their kids unvaccinated they're not succumbing to fear, they're practicing an alignment ritual with their chosen tribe. Fortunately this tribe is loosely coordinated and its rituals and rites are ad-hoc. All you really need to do is winnow the "I do not vaccinate my kids" thread away from the "I am a left-voting liberal that eats organic, supports Heifer International, enjoys kombucha and occasionally reads Goop" threads. This may or may not be possible, depending on their identity and how invested they are in it. The principle advantage you have is that most anti-vax sentiments are lightly examined and poorly understood, and often the act of requesting someone explain their understanding of the issue to you forces them to organize their thoughts, examine the facts they hold and synthesize a position. As a biologist you're in a great standpoint to honestly question what sort of information they're seeing and why they judge it credible. The trick is not to say "show my why you believe this so I can tell you you're full of shit" it's to say "I haven't seen anything compelling that makes me doubt the efficacy of vaccines; I'm curious what you're reading." If you can safely and comfortably show her that you aren't rejecting her tribe, but that there might be some issues with certain well-proscribed areas of dogma, you can get her to question that dogma without excessive cognitive dissonance. If on the other hand she's like a Jehovah's Witness you're fucked.
Thanks. I'm actually glad you didn't find the thread I was referring to though. It was heated. I remember it, and appreciate it, but don't want to relive it :) Haha. I thought at that point I might work on the father. He's a blue collar dude who will just do the thing he thinks is easiest first and right second, so far as I can tell.If on the other hand she's like a Jehovah's Witness you're fucked.
People want to feel like they are being heard and respected, so I would listen to her and empathize first. Woman get thrown a ton of stuff when they are pregnant and have plenty of opportunity to feel stupid so adding to that probably won't help you. You can still give her those facts but give it to her in a way that she can research on her own, like a good website, after listening to her. If you make her feel respected and give her the tools to do her own research then she feels smart. Whereas if you tell her she's wrong(dumb) and just tell her things she won't want to hear it because she will feel like she's being treated like a child.
I have come to realize that my thing that I refuse to believe after being presented evidence is that people won't believe things when they are presented evidence. I've seen it on the internet for sure, but I have never run in to it in person if I can remember. I've had my view changed in a conversation; I've seen people's view changed when presented with evidence IRL, but it's hard for me to believe someone adamantly refusing in the face of something stark.
The Backfire effect Give a man facts that counter his position and he doubles down and fights the new data rather than change his mind.
I think that its important to remember that all "Data" has a human element in it and there is an element of trust in data. The receiver of the data has to trust the collector of the data because the data is either impossible or impractical to replicate. This is especially obvious when reviewing data from say Chinese sources and you have no idea if the writer made everything up or found some sort of real discovery. This is also true for even prestigious universities where a large number (Over 50%) of studies cannot be replicated https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis. Without fixing this problem a lot of Data and studies that we see has a illegitimacy problem and cannot be trusted unless confirmed by multiple sources.
Human beings are not rational creatures. We are apes, wrapped around monkeys, wrapped around rodents, wrapped around lizards, wrapped around amphibians. Somewhere in all that circuitry, we look at the stars and compose symphonies. Frustrating that you can't grab the logic circuits first, but that is the way we are.
This isn't entirely accurate. Humans are rational creatures, it's just that the inputs and outputs we're reacting to are a Laplace transform of the inputs and outputs we're presented with. The trick is to couch the argument to both sets of I/O and recognize that while you're doing so, you're also coming from a place of id, not ego.
Eventually you get used to the dry heaves and the brain stops trying to vomit. Sort of like being sea sick. Embrace the suck, internalize it and use that data point to help you understand the things happening around you.Every time I read this it makes me nauseous.
Quine had thoughts, but no help in extracting your fellows from the piles of bullshit they're buried under.