4 ms·

I would upvote you twice if I could. The anti-science crowd and not idiots, but rather moderately intelligent individuals that go bersek after catching the Scie

I would upvote you twice if I could. The anti-science crowd and not idiots, but rather moderately intelligent individuals that go bersek after catching the Science spokeperson's oversimplifications and/or white lies. Fool me once and it's your fault, fool me twice and it is mine.

pzone 10y ago
This seems to be exactly the same as what the anti-PC and general Trump voting crowd believe as well. They HATE oversimplifications that deny their viewpoint. For example "Affirmative action is 100% fair." That's not an objective truth, but the left tries to sell it that way.
- skj 10y ago
  No, it's what the right-wing pundits sell as what the left tries to sell.
FabHK 10y ago
The anti-vac crowd might not be idiots, but they're selfish as hell (free-riding on herd immunisation while not willing to accept the (very very tiny) risk of vaccination to their precious child).
- BeetleB 10y ago
  >The anti-vac crowd might not be idiots, but they're selfish as hell (free-riding on herd immunisation while not willing to accept the (very very tiny) risk of vaccination to their precious child). You mean, selfish like everyone else is? Is it even appropriate to use a broad attribution like "selfish" to a specific case of selfishness? I know both pro and anti-vaccines. I can definitely assert that some of the anti-vacciners are less selfish than the pro-vacciners I know. I'd like you to examine your need to make a statement like this. It's a wonderful path of discovery (I am not being facetious here). You could have said that the anti-vaccine folks are reducing the herd immunization, and are benefiting from said herd immunizing without calling them selfish. Why the need to moralize? What was the purpose?
  - FabHK 10y ago
    Hi, yes, I mean selfish. The reason I "moralise" it is that it is but an instance of a prisoner's dilemma, tragedy of the commons. Same applies to signalling while driving, not stealing in stores, jumping the queue, lying on your CV, etc. etc. As in the tragedy of the commons, we have a lot to gain by cooperating, but individually have an incentive to defect/cheat. I personally think that there is no karma or god imposing justice or preventing cheating, thus it is incumbent on us to police compliance and discourage cheating. Furthermore, there are good arguments made that we have evolved capabilities to detect cheating and a tendency to punish cheaters (even to our cost). So, I'm both viscerally and, I think, rationally opposed to that and other forms of selfish cheating, and it warrants opprobrium and moralising disapproval, to minimise it. That's the purpose. Is that what you're asking? > I can definitely assert that some of the anti-vacciners are less selfish than the pro-vacciners I know. Not entirely sure what you mean - do you mean to say that the anti-vaccine stance is not selfish (which is in a sense a scientific issue), or that (while it is) there are people that are (in other ways) not selfish?
    - BeetleB 10y ago
      You're throwing around terms like "selfish" and "cheating". Both have connotations of intent. However, the disconnect is that none of the anti-vacciners I've come across intend to do anything you are suggesting. While from your perspective, they are gaining while not contributing, it is neither their intent nor their observation. So my question: Why use words like "selfish" and "cheating" when many/most of them do not believe they are gaining anything without contributing? >and it warrants opprobrium and moralising disapproval, to minimise it. That's the purpose. Forgive my skepticism, but if you are trying to tell me you are using such words in the hope of minimizing the behavior, I have trouble believing you. Two points: 1. Such behavior is more likely to cause dug heels and less likely to change people. 2. When you study the field of morality (scientifically, not just mere philosophy), you find that almost all such acts are for selfish purposes, with post-hoc rationalizations. I mean your selfish acts. As in you feel a need to criticize and ridicule, and your justification above is an attempt not to make it appear so. There are ways to persuade people. The method you cite (opprobrium and moralising) is amongst the least effective. If your goal was very strongly driven by trying to persuade people to use vaccines, you would focus more on other techniques. >Not entirely sure what you mean - do you mean to say that the anti-vaccine stance is not selfish (which is in a sense a scientific issue), or that (while it is) there are people that are (in other ways) not selfish? My point is that the label is broad, and you applied it to the person, and not just the act. Any neutral person who hears this will simply find it false. Put another way, if someone wants to dispute your claim, it is trivial to do so - I just did it in my original comment. I know at least one anti-vacciner who is less selfish than pretty much any pro-vacciner I know. And in general, I find the anti-vacciners that I personally know to be less selfish. You do not come off as one who is trying to cause change, but one who wants to sit and criticize. As I said: >You could have said that the anti-vaccine folks are reducing the herd immunization, and are benefiting from said herd immunizing without calling them selfish. Why didn't you? The point is as valid when phrased my way.
- mikeash 10y ago
  I've not seen any who understood that they were free riding. All of the ones I've encountered think that vaccines are not only harmful but also not very effective, if at all. They credit the disappearance of diseases like polio to other factors, like improvements in sanitation. They're not selfish, they're catastrophically misinformed and think that they're one of the few people who knows the truth, that vaccines are a fraud. (I have more experience with these people than I'd like. I missed out on a bunch of childhood vaccinations because of it, and still know a bunch. I'm certain it's no coincidence that the same group of people also believes in chemtrails, UFOs, UFOs destroying chemtrails, and one I just saw yesterday, that root canals cause cancer.)
- sqeaky 10y ago
  I haven't met one that wasn't an idiot. Around my location they are all claiming that vaccines cause autism or deferring to Jesus for his medical opinion like he actually exists. EDIT - Downvote away, but I would prefer if you demonstrated I was wrong by presenting a sensible reason to allow mass anti-vaccination. I understand there legitimate reasons for an individual to avoid a vaccine, like immune deficiency or allergies, but that is not a pass for the whole population.
  - BeetleB 10y ago
    >Downvote away, but I would prefer if you demonstrated I was wrong by presenting a sensible reason to allow mass anti-vaccination. Probably downvoted due to the swiftness by which you call someone an idiot... It's a broad term. I'm sure I can find someone who believes in the things you listed who can do several things better than you (be it mathematics, programming, etc). Who would the idiot be?
    - sqeaky 10y ago
      I use vitriol to convince in casual conversation, because it works. Just as the article indicates and many smart people before me have demonstrated people like to ignore facts that don't agree with them. Put another way "You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason into", so you need to use something else. I like peer pressure, sarcasm and shame. Even just a tiny cheap laugh can dislodge all but the most strongly held beliefs if those laughs come from their close peers. "Idiot" is not particularly funny, but was the word already chosen and followed nicely with the idea that people who believe dumb things should feel shame for feeling dumb things. I have no regret caller anti-vaxxers idiots, and I hope they feel shame for their dangerous ideas not matter how good they are at math or programming.
      - BeetleB 10y ago
        >I use vitriol to convince in casual conversation, because it works. >I like peer pressure, sarcasm and shame. Interestingly, when you read influence/negotiation books, all of these are listed as tactics that create resistance, and all recommend not using these tactics. One of the golden rules is to criticize the idea, not the person. >Even just a tiny cheap laugh can dislodge all but the most strongly held beliefs if those laughs come from their close peers. Agreed. But the reason you have so many anti-vaccine folks is that their peer group thinks like them. If you say it works for you, great! Not been my observation, and definitely not the observation of folks who do this stuff for a living. >I have no regret caller anti-vaxxers idiots This comment speaks to the reason I went off in this thread. Who is asking you to feel regret?

pzone 10y ago

This seems to be exactly the same as what the anti-PC and general Trump voting crowd believe as well. They HATE oversimplifications that deny their viewpoint. For example "Affirmative action is 100% fair." That's not an objective truth, but the left tries to sell it that way.

skj 10y ago
No, it's what the right-wing pundits sell as what the left tries to sell.

FabHK 10y ago

The anti-vac crowd might not be idiots, but they're selfish as hell (free-riding on herd immunisation while not willing to accept the (very very tiny) risk of vaccination to their precious child).

BeetleB 10y ago
>The anti-vac crowd might not be idiots, but they're selfish as hell (free-riding on herd immunisation while not willing to accept the (very very tiny) risk of vaccination to their precious child). You mean, selfish like everyone else is? Is it even appropriate to use a broad attribution like "selfish" to a specific case of selfishness? I know both pro and anti-vaccines. I can definitely assert that some of the anti-vacciners are less selfish than the pro-vacciners I know. I'd like you to examine your need to make a statement like this. It's a wonderful path of discovery (I am not being facetious here). You could have said that the anti-vaccine folks are reducing the herd immunization, and are benefiting from said herd immunizing without calling them selfish. Why the need to moralize? What was the purpose?
- FabHK 10y ago
  Hi, yes, I mean selfish. The reason I "moralise" it is that it is but an instance of a prisoner's dilemma, tragedy of the commons. Same applies to signalling while driving, not stealing in stores, jumping the queue, lying on your CV, etc. etc. As in the tragedy of the commons, we have a lot to gain by cooperating, but individually have an incentive to defect/cheat. I personally think that there is no karma or god imposing justice or preventing cheating, thus it is incumbent on us to police compliance and discourage cheating. Furthermore, there are good arguments made that we have evolved capabilities to detect cheating and a tendency to punish cheaters (even to our cost). So, I'm both viscerally and, I think, rationally opposed to that and other forms of selfish cheating, and it warrants opprobrium and moralising disapproval, to minimise it. That's the purpose. Is that what you're asking? > I can definitely assert that some of the anti-vacciners are less selfish than the pro-vacciners I know. Not entirely sure what you mean - do you mean to say that the anti-vaccine stance is not selfish (which is in a sense a scientific issue), or that (while it is) there are people that are (in other ways) not selfish?
  - BeetleB 10y ago
    You're throwing around terms like "selfish" and "cheating". Both have connotations of intent. However, the disconnect is that none of the anti-vacciners I've come across intend to do anything you are suggesting. While from your perspective, they are gaining while not contributing, it is neither their intent nor their observation. So my question: Why use words like "selfish" and "cheating" when many/most of them do not believe they are gaining anything without contributing? >and it warrants opprobrium and moralising disapproval, to minimise it. That's the purpose. Forgive my skepticism, but if you are trying to tell me you are using such words in the hope of minimizing the behavior, I have trouble believing you. Two points: 1. Such behavior is more likely to cause dug heels and less likely to change people. 2. When you study the field of morality (scientifically, not just mere philosophy), you find that almost all such acts are for selfish purposes, with post-hoc rationalizations. I mean your selfish acts. As in you feel a need to criticize and ridicule, and your justification above is an attempt not to make it appear so. There are ways to persuade people. The method you cite (opprobrium and moralising) is amongst the least effective. If your goal was very strongly driven by trying to persuade people to use vaccines, you would focus more on other techniques. >Not entirely sure what you mean - do you mean to say that the anti-vaccine stance is not selfish (which is in a sense a scientific issue), or that (while it is) there are people that are (in other ways) not selfish? My point is that the label is broad, and you applied it to the person, and not just the act. Any neutral person who hears this will simply find it false. Put another way, if someone wants to dispute your claim, it is trivial to do so - I just did it in my original comment. I know at least one anti-vacciner who is less selfish than pretty much any pro-vacciner I know. And in general, I find the anti-vacciners that I personally know to be less selfish. You do not come off as one who is trying to cause change, but one who wants to sit and criticize. As I said: >You could have said that the anti-vaccine folks are reducing the herd immunization, and are benefiting from said herd immunizing without calling them selfish. Why didn't you? The point is as valid when phrased my way.
mikeash 10y ago
I've not seen any who understood that they were free riding. All of the ones I've encountered think that vaccines are not only harmful but also not very effective, if at all. They credit the disappearance of diseases like polio to other factors, like improvements in sanitation. They're not selfish, they're catastrophically misinformed and think that they're one of the few people who knows the truth, that vaccines are a fraud. (I have more experience with these people than I'd like. I missed out on a bunch of childhood vaccinations because of it, and still know a bunch. I'm certain it's no coincidence that the same group of people also believes in chemtrails, UFOs, UFOs destroying chemtrails, and one I just saw yesterday, that root canals cause cancer.)
sqeaky 10y ago
I haven't met one that wasn't an idiot. Around my location they are all claiming that vaccines cause autism or deferring to Jesus for his medical opinion like he actually exists. EDIT - Downvote away, but I would prefer if you demonstrated I was wrong by presenting a sensible reason to allow mass anti-vaccination. I understand there legitimate reasons for an individual to avoid a vaccine, like immune deficiency or allergies, but that is not a pass for the whole population.
- BeetleB 10y ago
  >Downvote away, but I would prefer if you demonstrated I was wrong by presenting a sensible reason to allow mass anti-vaccination. Probably downvoted due to the swiftness by which you call someone an idiot... It's a broad term. I'm sure I can find someone who believes in the things you listed who can do several things better than you (be it mathematics, programming, etc). Who would the idiot be?
  - sqeaky 10y ago
    I use vitriol to convince in casual conversation, because it works. Just as the article indicates and many smart people before me have demonstrated people like to ignore facts that don't agree with them. Put another way "You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason into", so you need to use something else. I like peer pressure, sarcasm and shame. Even just a tiny cheap laugh can dislodge all but the most strongly held beliefs if those laughs come from their close peers. "Idiot" is not particularly funny, but was the word already chosen and followed nicely with the idea that people who believe dumb things should feel shame for feeling dumb things. I have no regret caller anti-vaxxers idiots, and I hope they feel shame for their dangerous ideas not matter how good they are at math or programming.
    - BeetleB 10y ago
      >I use vitriol to convince in casual conversation, because it works. >I like peer pressure, sarcasm and shame. Interestingly, when you read influence/negotiation books, all of these are listed as tactics that create resistance, and all recommend not using these tactics. One of the golden rules is to criticize the idea, not the person. >Even just a tiny cheap laugh can dislodge all but the most strongly held beliefs if those laughs come from their close peers. Agreed. But the reason you have so many anti-vaccine folks is that their peer group thinks like them. If you say it works for you, great! Not been my observation, and definitely not the observation of folks who do this stuff for a living. >I have no regret caller anti-vaxxers idiots This comment speaks to the reason I went off in this thread. Who is asking you to feel regret?