From Sandman (I’m paraphrasing here) :
"It has always been the prerogative of children and fools to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But the fool remains a fool and the king remains a king "
I’m not convinced people believe in a thing because they genuinely believe it to be true, I see us rationalizing our beliefs out of the environment we live in.
What if believing we can know truth was itself an emotional response to our environment?
Anyway, I’ve always had better luck of convincing people to do something I told them I accept to be true rather than something that just is objectively true.
Sometimes in public health, rights and wrongs on an individual level don’t matter. Kids should get vaccinated, and while it can feel good to blame the parents for various moral failings, for being idiots and so forth, blame doesn’t solve the larger problem of unvaccinated subpopulations damaging herd immunity. The best arguments are the most persuasive arguments, even if they aren’t, strictly speaking, true.
I think this is an important point. I have yet to see the parents who acknowledges the data before reaching a conclusion. I’d have a lot more respect for that. Maggie Koerth-Baker can argue the merits of unicorns, but I personally haven’t seen any.
[quote=“cleveremi, post:3, topic:73895”]
She’s pointing out that the anti- and the pro- sides are having parallel debates, not the same one.[/quote]
#YES
#NO
Damn, and you were so, so close. But then you fell into the tribalism trap.
I suppose I should go read Ms. Koerth-Baker’s article and see if Mr. Eppy’s synopsis does it justice.
Edit: #OMIGOD SHE GETS IT! SOMEONE FINALLY GETS IT!
Sadly, this proves my communication skills really do suck, since I tried to explain it to her repeatedly right here on bOINGbOING… a dark lining in this silver cloud.
There’s a problem with the “we must empathise with people who hold destructive irrational beliefs” approach: it doesn’t work. They continue their destructive behaviour.
However, there does appear to be a solution. Look at the recent Disneyland measles outbreak. Rational critique of vaccine refusal appeared to be ineffective, but the mass public scorn and contempt unleashed after DisneyMeasles did seem to have some bite.
There are situations in which a negative response produces the best outcome.
They are exactly like people who burn fossil fuels - selfish assholes willing to put their own personal concerns above the best interests of the species as a whole.
Once a person understands this, as you and Maggie now do, it actually is possible to persuade them to change their behaviour. Anti-vaxxers, I mean; petroleum burners are generally immune to reason.
It’s a needle either way. Might be pointless but, infant mortality was lower in those days. Also, according to the pic you have in that case, only polio is stopped, so don’t get pedantic. I’m very aware that vaccination is very important. I didn’t explain it very well. [quote=“anon67050589, post:22, topic:73895”]
You’ve got a lot of learning to do.
[/quote]
You first, learn not to project so much.
Then I guess I misread too; I agree with what you’ve said here, but found Ms. Koerth-Baker’s article to- at times - note that the “selfish asshole’s” opinion was either justified or reasonable (when reasonable = decision making that takes into account larger issues).
It is reasonable, as long as you accept that it’s OK to set your own justifiable concerns for your children above everyone else’s far more justifiable concerns for the entire population. And remember, that is the most popular model for economics today - the idea that people always do what is best for themselves based on complete selfishness, no matter how much harm that does to others. This is the mainstream political and economic ideal at this point, really; kids aspire to grow up to be greedy exploiters like famous rich people and their parents encourage them.
I am an unreasonable person; I do things out of ideological and religious conviction all the time that are of no use to me as an individual, only as part of a community. I’ll probably end up manning a voting booth again this election cycle. I try really hard to minimize my fossil fuel use even though it’s not economically advantageous for me to do so. So, I’m insane by modern economic standards - completely unreasonable - while the anti-vaxxers are just homo economicus, or to put it more concisely (as @Purplecat did) they are selfish assholes, as the Keynesians, Austrians and monetarians all say we should be proud to be. “Greed is good” they cry - every man for himself!
These boards are full of people ranting about how stupid the anti-vaxxers are and how immune to reason they are. Meanwhile, I know two families who have changed their minds and vaccinated their children, and I like to think I helped that happen. How 'bout that, huh? Understanding leads to real communication - and not just divisive scapegoating - which can eventually lead to mutual co-operation. The first step to changing someone’s mind is understanding where their minds already are. And I think Maggie does understand now.
We agree, and I’m not debating any of your points other than this one: Reasonableness is in the eye of the beholder, I guess. I view my decision to vaccinate my 2 kids as the only reasonable choice, as it is for the greater good and the risks to my own are fairly small. You are saying the decision in and of itself to protect one’s own kids rather than the herd is also reasonable.
I would never call it reasonable to mis-assess the level of risk that would engender the decision not to vaccinate.
How is it you think/thought otherwise? I didn’t actually need to reference this, it’s for you. Even just my anecdotal knowledge from the tales of my great grandparents, grandparents and even my own parents make it clear that maternal and infant mortality rates have dropped so sharply as to seem a miracle if the passage of an entire century and innumerable health/medical advancements is disregarded when considering it from a then and now perspective.
I think so. The subjectivity of reason is what drives the whole thing. What’s reasonable to you, as a more enlightened person, is not reasonable for someone who has absorbed the modern gospel of total self-interest.*
Such people are willing to be free riders, and let others protect them, because of the very tiny but very real chance that their children might be harmed by a vaccine. Homo Economicus, the modern hero, drives to the corner store and poisons the whole planet so he can get a bottle of shampoo. It’s because his gain (fresh-smelling hair) is more important to him than society’s loss (7 million dead people). It’s not like he hasn’t been told he’s killing people, he’s making a selfish decision.
Of course once you have enough people trying to ride on the herd immunity, though, it doesn’t work any more. Particularly with the extremely contagious diseases, as Maggie pointed out. So as usual, greed is really self-defeating - when you’re a member of a species built for cooperation…
*EDIT: that is also a subjective value judgement, of course. In my personal opinion you’re more enlightened.
I agree - as they say, if ignorance isn’t the problem, education isn’t the solution (not that the problem can’t include ignorance). The idea that our actions must take other people’s welfare into consideration, even at a cost to ourselves is an ethical one rather than a logical one, as long as we assume that our actions don’t have a noticeable effect on everyone else’s actions and our desired outcome is our personal benefit. The first assumption is only logical in an individualistic society and the second is built on the first.
That assumes that parents own their children or that their rights as parents are more important than the child’s rights.
I suspect that children who suffer serious effects of diseases that could be prevented with vaccination may not agree with their parents; particularly if those effects are disfiguring or mentally or physically disabling.
…and the elderly, and the immune-compromised, and the people who forgot their booster shot, and all of the people who were unsuccessfully vaccinated (who are not practically identifiable; their only defence is herd immunity).
