4 ms·

Public health is a drastically different battlefield then public equity. It’s closer to seatbelt laws and geopolitics then it is to day trading. Of course there

by tmpz22 6y ago

Public health is a drastically different battlefield then public equity. It’s closer to seatbelt laws and geopolitics then it is to day trading. Of course there are going to be different arguments, different misinformation, etc. But you don’t hyper rationalize a public health crisis with arguments like: “I personally am low risk so...” “Actually I don’t need to wear a mask when I do this in public because...” “My political leader disagrees with public health officials so...”

clairity 6y ago
> "You don’t hyper rationalize a public health crisis like you would a line of python code." when lives are at stake is exactly when we should 'hyper-rationalize' (which doesn't mean don't consider emotion at all). we don't build bridges, go into war, or write aircraft control software thinking we'll wing it.
- tmpz22 6y ago
  Apologies I made an edit to my comment before yours posted that’s bad etiquette on my part. Hyper rationalization means following a technically correct path that misses the Forrest for the trees, in this case you could get away without wearing a mask while running through a park and maintaining a ten foot buffer, but you shouldn’t because it signals to others that it’s ok not to wear a mask and makes it less likely for others to conform if there is a list of semi exceptions.
  - clairity 6y ago
    > "...that it’s ok not to wear a mask and makes it less likely for others to conform if there is a list of semi exceptions." by your definition, that's hyper-rationalized (missing forest for trees) and exactly the kind of othering belief being highlighting: let's ignore actual risks and shared goals, and instead try to outwit those damn fools that are surely out there trying to kill us. masks worn outside are largely for signaling (as your example admits) and self-mollification rather than infection reduction. it's unlikely that outdoor mask-wearing has reduced spread meaningfully or measurably. but outdoor mask-wearing in turn gives us permission to not wear them at home or at private gatherings, because we've already 'done our part' against those selfish others, and this lowering of the guard in private does measurably increase spread. if you're really concerned about spread, you'd focus solely on minimizing close (<3ft) and prolonged (>15min) shared breathing indoors, not showing others outdoors how conformant and fearful you might be.

by tmpz22 6y ago

clairity 6y ago

> "You don’t hyper rationalize a public health crisis like you would a line of python code." when lives are at stake is exactly when we should 'hyper-rationalize' (which doesn't mean don't consider emotion at all). we don't build bridges, go into war, or write aircraft control software thinking we'll wing it.

tmpz22 6y ago
Apologies I made an edit to my comment before yours posted that’s bad etiquette on my part. Hyper rationalization means following a technically correct path that misses the Forrest for the trees, in this case you could get away without wearing a mask while running through a park and maintaining a ten foot buffer, but you shouldn’t because it signals to others that it’s ok not to wear a mask and makes it less likely for others to conform if there is a list of semi exceptions.
- clairity 6y ago
  > "...that it’s ok not to wear a mask and makes it less likely for others to conform if there is a list of semi exceptions." by your definition, that's hyper-rationalized (missing forest for trees) and exactly the kind of othering belief being highlighting: let's ignore actual risks and shared goals, and instead try to outwit those damn fools that are surely out there trying to kill us. masks worn outside are largely for signaling (as your example admits) and self-mollification rather than infection reduction. it's unlikely that outdoor mask-wearing has reduced spread meaningfully or measurably. but outdoor mask-wearing in turn gives us permission to not wear them at home or at private gatherings, because we've already 'done our part' against those selfish others, and this lowering of the guard in private does measurably increase spread. if you're really concerned about spread, you'd focus solely on minimizing close (<3ft) and prolonged (>15min) shared breathing indoors, not showing others outdoors how conformant and fearful you might be.