3 ms·

My science background leads me to look at the situation as the NY Times does. I find this article compelling in motivating me to support sticking with protocols

by spodek 6y ago

My science background leads me to look at the situation as the NY Times does. I find this article compelling in motivating me to support sticking with protocols from science experts on social distancing, etc. Last week I appeared on a very pro-Trump podcast. The starting point for the very pro-Trump person was freedom and the economy. Numbers like in this article seemed irrelevant to him, or even signs of people trying to seize more power. If we want to lower the spread of this pandemic, our biggest challenge is influencing people's behavior. If telling people more numbers doesn't influence people how we intend, they may be verifiable and right, but if we want to save lives, including our own, we have to figure out what works. Elsewhere in this thread somebody wrote > Another story with tunnel vision. > I don't pay attention to the NY Times, but have they had any opinion pieces suggesting that maybe the destruction of the economy is also a bad thing? And, maybe, someone besides a reporter or "health expert" should make some kind of attempt to determine if it is even possible to sustain these policies? > I really feel like I'm in a Tales from Dark Side episode. Currently the comment is downvoted to near invisibility. But that perspective is motivating tens of millions of people. If we want to motivate them, we have to figure out how to respond. Spewing facts, however right, if it motivates people to stop listening, or downvoting instead of addressing is a matter of life and death. How do we respond effectively to people with such views?

dhimes 6y ago
Changing people's minds to something they don't want to hear is really difficult. I have a personal hypothesis that some people are just really bad at abstract reasoning- they don't really get patterns, and they can't see the same pattern in a different context. Even something like, "If we're wrong and come out of this too early we may have to do this all over again next fall."
- DuskStar 6y ago
  Well, here's something you're going to love to hear, then: "If we do this right and come out of it this summer, we're still going to have to do it again this fall"
  - dhimes 6y ago
    ugh.
Balgair 6y ago
Kill them with kindness. You, a living person with a face, have to become more trusted to that individual person than the alternatives. Do not talk about the issue during this 'trust phase'. Only then can you approach that person about their erroneous ideas and thoughts. They then have to decide, freely, what to do. This can take years or weeks to accomplish. That's the summation of a lot of work on the subject.

by spodek 6y ago

dhimes 6y ago

Changing people's minds to something they don't want to hear is really difficult. I have a personal hypothesis that some people are just really bad at abstract reasoning- they don't really get patterns, and they can't see the same pattern in a different context. Even something like, "If we're wrong and come out of this too early we may have to do this all over again next fall."

DuskStar 6y ago
Well, here's something you're going to love to hear, then: "If we do this right and come out of it this summer, we're still going to have to do it again this fall"
- dhimes 6y ago
  ugh.

Balgair 6y ago

Kill them with kindness. You, a living person with a face, have to become more trusted to that individual person than the alternatives. Do not talk about the issue during this 'trust phase'. Only then can you approach that person about their erroneous ideas and thoughts. They then have to decide, freely, what to do. This can take years or weeks to accomplish. That's the summation of a lot of work on the subject.