mikeh, on 2021-December-25, 15:49, said:
I've tried to stay away from the WC because it contains some very strange points of view and I get unnecessarily riled up by them.
I heard an interesting argument on the radio the other day. The topic was how to engage with science deniers, which would include but not be limited to anti-vaxxers
The argument was that most such people have five characteristics in common. I'm not sure I remember exactly how these were described, but doing the best I can and in no particular order here they are
1. Distrust. General floating distrust of government and experts
2. A propensity to cherry-pick facts. They fix on facts out of context to justify their beliefs
3. A reliance upon fake experts
4. A belief that they are being more 'scientific' or objective in their assessment of the issues than the mainstream
5 the belief that science should always speak in absolutes. If there is any error at all, even if corrected, it invalidates everything. Thus the change in mask mandates means that masks are useless. The need for booster shots and the existence of breakthrough infections means that vaccines don't work
The proponent of this view argued that it's impossible to change the mind of such a person by relying upon the real facts. They've internalized the facts they see as real and are usually aware of and rejecting of any facts that don't match. I suppose it's an instance of cognitive dissonance, in which presenting a believer with evidence that their belief is mistaken usually has the paradoxical effect of strengthening their delusion
Their fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method is also a major hurdle. To those with any understanding at all, it is both obvious and predictable that the approach to the disease would evolve as data and experience increased. It's also a fact that no vaccine is ever 100% effective and that nobody can predict with any assurance how long the antibody response engenders by a vaccine would persist. Yet these people see the evolution of our understanding of the disease and treatment/prevention as proof that the experts were wrong and thus are still wrong now and will remain wrong in the future.
Add distrust, fueled by listening to fake experts, of pharma and government, and it's no surprise that pronouncements from pharma and government are rejected and indeed are seen as evidence that the rest of us are sheep.
He suggested engaging the person by making it clear that one respects the person even while rejecting the belief. Then one may ask 'what evidence would you need in order to change your views?'
He went on to suggest, as I understood him, that the best one can hope for is to plant a seed of doubt
I actually tried this approach with an anti-vaxxer member of my extended family. It didn't work at all.
So I haven't tried it since. Maybe I should but perhaps mistakenly I see the olpossums of the world as being truly stupid, which is probably more of a failing on my part than theirs. It is so profoundly frustrating to live in a society in which the vast bulk of the societal and financial consequences of Covid arise from the stubborn stupidity of a minority….of course I'm speaking of the relatively small society of 'First World' nations. Stepping back a bit, the bigger problem seems likely to be associated with the abject failure of western nations to supply vaccines to the rest of the world, thus preserving a vast pool of unvaccinated people in whom the virus can mutate.
My thoughts:
I try to be clear. I try to be honest. I acknowledge my limited knowledge about almost everything. We must make choices, and if I never made a choice until I was an expert, I would be paralyzed. Here is a sample from a few posts back: My first two shots were Pfizer. For the booster, my doc said he could give me Moderna immediately and recommended that I take it. I chose to wait a few days and get the Pfizer booster. I did not read research papers, I just chose.
Another example: We saw my younger daughter about 8 days ago for a Christmas celebration. Indoors, not wearing masks but keeping a distance. Yesterday we saw my older daughter. We discussed format beforehand, we stayed outside and we all wore masks. There is pretty good reason to believe none of us have covid. But my grandson heard a week ago that one of his work colleagues had gotten it, and my grandaughter's boyfriend has it. Bothe grandkids have been tested and pronounced virus-free, but e decided we would all be cautious. Also Becky had been going to an exercise class at a gym. She will be exercising in private from now on, but my daughter was happy about being cautious.
We think things through, but we act without conclusive proof. This is life.
So I can tell people how I go about making my choices, they can, if they wish, think about what I said. Sometimes I change my mind after hearing from other people on one topic or another. Possibly sometimes people change their minds after I express myself. My goal is not to change their minds, my goal is to express myself clearly.
The above has to do with individual discussions. I do also believe we sometimes have to set rules as a society. Just about everyone believes that, we disagree about which rules and when.
I have little interest in telling people how to live their lives, but when a pandemic is sweeping the world that is a special case. The idea that we would not force anyone to wear a mask, so that as hospitals are overflowing and many people are dying off we can say "Yes, people are dying but we preserved the fundamental right to go maskless", doesn't work for me. Anyone who knows me knows I am not much into telling others how to live their lives. Exceptions happen. Call it self-preservation, call it social responsibility, call it anything, I probably just call it sensible, we have to deal with what comes at us.
Help
