9 ms·

I recent came across a technique for having a more substantial discussion and it was to ask: "Well, what would it take for you to change your mind?" Not that t

I recent came across a technique for having a more substantial discussion and it was to ask: "Well, what would it take for you to change your mind?" Not that this is a silver bullet that automatically leads to peace and harmony, but it's a step in the right direction.

mlang23 5y ago
Why does this technique change anything? You are still assuming the supposed superior position, since you imply that the stance of your discussion partner is wrong and needs to be changed. Dont you see how patronising this is?
- Pyramus 5y ago
  I think you misunderstood the technique, e.g. you can simply apply it to yourself. If there is nothing that will change one's position, it's not worth engaging because the outcome is set.
  - kazinator 5y ago
    If a position is held based on rational evidence, then there is always something which can change it: a flaw being found in the evidence.
- rfrey 5y ago
  In any debate outside of clubs you assume you're right and the other person is wrong - otherwise you'd change your mind. What the question your parent poses can do is get to the root of the objection your conversation partner has. "What would make you change your mind" forces the conversation in the direction of uncovering the true source of the disagreement. It helps to avoid talking about "symptoms" or issues that you might find important but are not important to your partner. It helps avoid talking past each other. It helps identify what issues are important to the other person.
- silicon2401 5y ago
  This kind of fragility is hostile to rational discussions. There's no patronisation to asking somebody a question about their beliefs; it's literally just a question. If somebody asked me that, I would take it as an opportunity to really explore my beliefs, and think about what conditions would cause me to change my beliefs. It has nothing to do with the other person or their beliefs. We shouldn't encourage this kind of fragility and victim complex that has become so common lately.
  - bananabiscuit 5y ago
    In my experience, the intent of people asking me why I don’t want to vaccinate is almost never to really understand my perspective and my reasons for not doing so. Instead the goal is usually to find the first statement I make that they feel they can easily attack (ignoring all other reasons I state), and then attack that statement and conclude that I am a conspiracy theorist antivaxxer.
    - mlang23 5y ago
      I experience similar things. Frankly, I think the media has put so many weird labels on people who choose not to vaccinate that after the lockdowns, the vaxed people found a sort of sensation in talking to non-vaxed people. It felt like in a zoo. "So, you are not vaxed because you are afraid of the pain?" The actual reason for most, which is "I have decided to risk an infection to let my immune system do its job" is never really talked about because I mostly end up terminating the conversation because it has this distinct derogatory tone from the ohter side.
      - CogitoCogito 5y ago
        > The actual reason for most, which is "I have decided to risk an infection to let my immune system do its job" To be fair, this is what the vaccines do.
        mlang23 5y ago
        Come on. If humanity were unable to survive without the help of artificial vaccines, we would never be here.
- Grimm1 5y ago
  Maybe they do have the superior position, just because you happen to hold a belief doesn't make it valid. That's the point of discussion in the first place, that is to understand.
- tnel77 5y ago
  I don’t think it’s patronizing. You are asking someone what their concerns are with your opinion. They could answer “nothing” and that would be an acceptable answer to the question.
rotexo 5y ago
That question might best be prefaced with “here’s what would change my mind… what about yours?” That formulation might come across as more curious and open rather than patronizing. Though I honestly don’t at all understand the mindset of people who don’t want the vaccine, so I have to admit this approach could quite easily still be offensive.
- ipaddr 5y ago
  People are mostly worried about long term side effects. Including those who have the vaccine. Understanding that base fear will help bridge the divide between groups.
  - rotexo 5y ago
    Right, but I see elsewhere that it is mostly about individual freedom. It is hard for me to understand if those two reasons are two separate groups, or if one is an internal reason and the other is the stated reason, for instance. If the latter is the case, it seems like it would be good to have a curious and open conversation to understand the hidden reason. Though that is probably impossible, since there is so little trust surrounding these conversations now.
  - moate 5y ago
    Not really? I don't see how you bridge a group worried about a short term existential threat (the virus) and another alleging worry about a long term existential threat (the vaccine) when the two things are 0 sum. By the time group 2 catches up (because years have gone by of the vaccine not causing widespread problems) the threat is gone. Meanwhile the animosity has not truly been diminished because the first group will feel the second is responsible for insert issue pertaining to millions of people willingly not getting vaccinated that caused them pain/suffering. It's almost like many people are "worried" about "long term effects" as just a smoke-screen to run out the clock on the issue...
    - ipaddr 5y ago
      The first group has been told it is the second's group fault. The first group is setup to think negatively about the second group because it deflects from decisions made. Let's say it brings on side effects like early dimentia or something much worse. The first group is setup to feel anger towards the healthy second group. The lucky children under 12 become the future. Decision makers can play this off as we are sorry we didn't know. A recent study (last week) came out showing after three months it starts wearing and you need to get another vaccine. You will have different people at various levels of vaccines shots (1 to 3 and by Jan you could need a fourth). What being vaccinated means based on the number of shots and where you are in the wearoff cycle makes the vac vs unvac divided not based on reality. If you had one shot got a side effect and decided not to get the next shot where does that person fit?
admissionsguy 5y ago
> what would it take for you to change your mind?" In general terms, I would need the society at large to get off the moral high horse and engage in an honest cost/benefit analysis of all covid measures. Isn't it hypocritical that people accuse the young not taking the vaccine of being selfish, while hoarding the vaccines away from vulnerable people in poorer parts of the world?
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  > Isn't it hypocritical that people accuse the young not taking the vaccine of being selfish, while hoarding the vaccines away from vulnerable people in poorer parts of the world? It can only hypocritical if it is the same people making both arguments.
- hendersoon 5y ago
  Yes, that is absolutely hypocritical and we should continue to pressure the western world to distribute more vaccine globally before giving booster shots to their own citizens. That said, I'm absolutely getting _my_ booster as soon as I'm eligible. That isn't hypocritical; at that point the decision was made and if I don't take the booster it won't be sent to sub-Saharan Africa.
not2b 5y ago
Someone might be holding out for a reason they can't articulate or justify, so they give have an answer to your question (what would it take to change your mind?) but it might not be the true one or the sufficient one. I hope that this latest change sways some people but I don't think it will be a lot.
- kenjackson 5y ago
  That works, but only if the reason is one they feel willing to give you. For example, I suspect a really simple answer for a lot of people could be "if it increases the chances of Trump being president in 2024". Or "if Covid killed my wife and some, but not all, of my kids".
  - nyokodo 5y ago
    > “if it increases the chances of Trump being president in 2024". Or "if Covid killed my wife and some, but not all, of my kids" These are too sophisticated reasons. More realistic renditions might be “that other tribe gets vaccinated loudly therefore I won’t” and “I’m strong, only the weak get vaccinated.” Of course the same in-group dynamics etc motivate the vaccinated and we’d be lying to ourselves if we thought our actions are purely rational and charitable.
- nyokodo 5y ago
  > it might not be the true one or the sufficient one. Unless you’re dealing with an extraordinary individual or the issue is relatively trivial then you won’t be told sufficient reasons. A lot of what motivates us is deep down and dumb and we rarely want to admit it even if we’re aware of it which is even rarer. I find that examining reasons to change my own mind is much more fruitful because it’s harder to lie to myself albeit still far too easy.
  - peakaboo 5y ago
    For me it's the fact that I'm making the decision based on emotional factors. I don't trust big pharma and I don't trust the vaccines. Should be reason enough. There is plenty of things we don't trust in life, so we don't use those things.
dfxm12 5y ago
What type of responses did you get? I agree, engaging people is a good way to go. I don't know any anti-vaxxers personally, so I have to actively work to remind myself they might not all have the same reasons as the ones I know impersonally (who all happen to be full of misinfo, like Eric Clapton, et al.). There are no silver bullets that lead to peace and harmony, obviously, but a greater understanding of each other is good for many reasons.
- chitowneats 5y ago
  I would have no problem with vaccine mandates if they were instead immunity mandates. Some people, like many in my family, spent a year and half exposing themselves to keep the electricity running, food packaged, delivered, fulfillment warehouses running, etc. Seems very strange that in the U.S. these people, most of whom are young (which means they are at lower risk from covid but higher risk from vax complications like myocarditis), cannot prove they have active antibodies as a way to meet an "immunity mandate". Instead, they are treated as if they are a threat. As if they are the ones who are overstressing the health care systems. When often instead they are the frontline workers these systems depend on. Many give care in nursing homes and at hospitals (in the case of nurses, a large percentage of whom still refuse the vax). How many health care resources does the average unvaxxed healthy 26 year old consume? A lot less than the chronic smoker, the morbidly obese, the elderly, etc.
  - peakaboo 5y ago
    This thing was never about protecting people. Thats why it doesn't make sense to you. These health passes will later be called citizen passes or similar, and you won't be able to do any activity without them. And if you are a difficult person with opinions about this, you will get flagged as a security risk and unable to use that citizen pass. People think I'm joking and it will never happen. But I believe that's exactly where we are heading.
    - chitowneats 5y ago
      I never said I was confused in my comment. Reasonable people can disagree about the necessity of vaccines for every single human. I'm making the case it is not necessary and that it is unethical. I could have gone into how these vaccines would be much more useful given to at-risk populations throughout the world instead of low risk, largely already immune young populations in the West. That's another good angle of this. All that being said, I don't think scare mongering about social credit systems is helpful in this discussion. Most I've talked to who support vax pass are resolutely opposed to China-style social credit systems and I believe such a system would be difficult to implement in the U.S.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
acituan 5y ago
> I recent came across a technique... The moment you start talking about techniques you've already objectified the person across you to something to be finessed over, and as such less than a full person. So many of our recent social-media extremized public debates escalate to the point of denying or diminishing the other side's personhood. They are an "obstacle" to overcome for some greater purpose, and thus we "must" manipulate, coerce or the very least impress conclusions down their throats. The meta-context is that today we are all more psychologically fragile and the breadth of data points we have to reconcile gets wider (in no small part thanks to engagement metrics optimizations). We all turn into fanatics of some sort or other, fueled by this anxiety, including that of self-doubt. At no point we are incentivized to participate in the process of rationality together, we're only incentivized to willfully assert our own conclusions. I see most of the "resistance" as an acting out as a protest for having been left out of this process, including having been honored in anxieties. Notice I have said nothing about the truth value of conclusions, nor am trying to draw a false equivalency of "all-sides-ism", because the sense of participation, or lack thereof, is orthogonal to the truth of content, but hurts just as much when neglected. We've forgot how to be a fellowship of people who share similar fates and see each other as such, we've turned into mere proposition debating machines.
- hondo77 5y ago
  > ...a protest for having been left out of this process... Because it's not like they live in a representative democracy, right?
  - acituan 5y ago
    Representative democracy is a decision-making process. I’m talking about the process that precedes it; of making sense of the world through dialogue.
- p_j_w 5y ago
  >The moment you start talking about techniques you've already objectified the person across you There's nothing about any sort of technique that is inherent to objects and not people. Techniques are something used to achieve a goal, and if a person is involved in that goal, there's nothing wrong with using that sort of verbiage. >thus we "must" manipulate, coerce or the very least impress conclusions down their throats. You've made any attempt to change someone's mind out to automatically be something that's naturally evil. Ridiculous.
peakaboo 5y ago
This "technique" sends a strong signal to me that your goal is to change the person's mind, not respect his desire to not take the shot.
slumdev 5y ago
> Well, what would it take for you to change your mind? A vaccine that (1) did not use cell lines from aborted fetuses at any point in its discovery, development, testing, or production, and that (2) has been studied for 10 years to determine long-term safety and efficacy like we would do with any other vaccine. What would it take to change your mind?
xdennis 5y ago
> Well, what would it take for you to change your mind? A lot of things, but just the top two would be enough: 1) Being able to sue. If you can sue J&J for baby powder, should be able to sue Pfizer for vaccines if anything goes wrong. 2) Falsifiability in government actions. Many rights have been taken away (some permanently) by saying "we just need to do this and then it will all be over" like "a few weeks to flatten the curve", "the last lockdown", and "x% vaccinated and we'll be back to normal". But when they don't work, the people are blamed, more rights are taken and more restrictions imposed. It's never that the actions were wrong. I expect something like if "70% of people are vaccinated then we expect no more than 5000 cases per day" and if the statement turns out to be false there will be no more vaccine impositions because it clearly will have turned out to be wrong. If something doesn't work you shouldn't double down.
- tw04 5y ago
  You're on a site centered around technology and don't seem to acknowledge the scientific process... You cannot, with 100% accuracy, model a virus that is mutating in a population that includes the entire planet. We have things we know worked in the past, we try them, and we then modify our next move based on the results. We don't say "well we got that one wrong so now we're just not going to try anything". If every scientist took the approach you're suggesting we'd still be eating raw meat and living in caves.
- handoflixue 5y ago
  > Being able to sue. Why is suing vital? What's insufficient about the existing National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program? https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/index.html https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/index.html (I'm genuinely unfamiliar with any flaws it might have) > Many rights have been taken away (some permanently) What rights have been permanently removed? For that matter, what RIGHTS have been even temporarily suspended?
  - nsxwolf 5y ago
    Many people consider the freedom of movement without constantly having to show papers to be a right, even if it's not explicitly codified in some law or constitution. I could say I have a right to breathe air and someone would probably come around and tell me I'm wrong, but most people have some intuition for what a "natural" right is, and bristle when something encroaches on those.
breck 5y ago
> Well, what would it take for you to change your mind? For me number one would be: if the CDC starts tracking re-infection rate in the non-vaccinated, and puts that data front and center as key KPIs on all their releases.
- jedmeyers 5y ago
  What do you expect to see from that data alone? How much immunity and for how long the actual covid infection provides?
  - breck 5y ago
    > What do you expect to see from that data alone? How much immunity and for how long the actual covid infection provides? Yes, so we can deduce remaining susceptible. The basic model in a pandemic is SIR. Susceptible, Infected, Recovered. Vaxed is a secondary factor. We live in crazy land when I have to explain why we should be tracking Susceptible (computable when you know number infected and reinfection rate). (not to pick on you, just speaking about general trends I'm seeing) Imagine if in computing someone asked, "why should we measure RAM usage?" It's like, the very very basics. Without that, you cannot accurately model and forecast the pandemic. And you can see for yourself how poorly the CDC is still modeling this when they said "vax work great! no masks!" and then "shit! vax don't work as great as we said, masks back on!" It's like they are pretending that natural immunity without a vax does not exist. One of the very basics in epi, both theoretically and empirically from mountains of data. It's crazy town, I tell you. At the individual level you should know this to make the proper conditional decisions. There is scant benefit to be had from the vax if you were infected and recovered naturally (and yes, I've read the Kentucky study, and if that's someone's main argument they're a moron).
technothrasher 5y ago
> I recent came across a technique for having a more substantial discussion and it was to ask: "Well, what would it take for you to change your mind?" Sounds like you should take a look at Street Epistemology. It is a modern version of the Socratic method that asks questions similar to that. The goal is not to make your interlocutor change their mind necessarily, but instead to explore the reasons for the beliefs they hold and whether they may be sufficently justified or not.

mlang23 5y ago

Why does this technique change anything? You are still assuming the supposed superior position, since you imply that the stance of your discussion partner is wrong and needs to be changed. Dont you see how patronising this is?

Pyramus 5y ago
I think you misunderstood the technique, e.g. you can simply apply it to yourself. If there is nothing that will change one's position, it's not worth engaging because the outcome is set.
- kazinator 5y ago
  If a position is held based on rational evidence, then there is always something which can change it: a flaw being found in the evidence.
rfrey 5y ago
In any debate outside of clubs you assume you're right and the other person is wrong - otherwise you'd change your mind. What the question your parent poses can do is get to the root of the objection your conversation partner has. "What would make you change your mind" forces the conversation in the direction of uncovering the true source of the disagreement. It helps to avoid talking about "symptoms" or issues that you might find important but are not important to your partner. It helps avoid talking past each other. It helps identify what issues are important to the other person.
silicon2401 5y ago
This kind of fragility is hostile to rational discussions. There's no patronisation to asking somebody a question about their beliefs; it's literally just a question. If somebody asked me that, I would take it as an opportunity to really explore my beliefs, and think about what conditions would cause me to change my beliefs. It has nothing to do with the other person or their beliefs. We shouldn't encourage this kind of fragility and victim complex that has become so common lately.
- bananabiscuit 5y ago
  In my experience, the intent of people asking me why I don’t want to vaccinate is almost never to really understand my perspective and my reasons for not doing so. Instead the goal is usually to find the first statement I make that they feel they can easily attack (ignoring all other reasons I state), and then attack that statement and conclude that I am a conspiracy theorist antivaxxer.
  - mlang23 5y ago
    I experience similar things. Frankly, I think the media has put so many weird labels on people who choose not to vaccinate that after the lockdowns, the vaxed people found a sort of sensation in talking to non-vaxed people. It felt like in a zoo. "So, you are not vaxed because you are afraid of the pain?" The actual reason for most, which is "I have decided to risk an infection to let my immune system do its job" is never really talked about because I mostly end up terminating the conversation because it has this distinct derogatory tone from the ohter side.
    - CogitoCogito 5y ago
      > The actual reason for most, which is "I have decided to risk an infection to let my immune system do its job" To be fair, this is what the vaccines do.
      - mlang23 5y ago
        Come on. If humanity were unable to survive without the help of artificial vaccines, we would never be here.
Grimm1 5y ago
Maybe they do have the superior position, just because you happen to hold a belief doesn't make it valid. That's the point of discussion in the first place, that is to understand.
tnel77 5y ago
I don’t think it’s patronizing. You are asking someone what their concerns are with your opinion. They could answer “nothing” and that would be an acceptable answer to the question.

rotexo 5y ago

That question might best be prefaced with “here’s what would change my mind… what about yours?” That formulation might come across as more curious and open rather than patronizing. Though I honestly don’t at all understand the mindset of people who don’t want the vaccine, so I have to admit this approach could quite easily still be offensive.

ipaddr 5y ago
People are mostly worried about long term side effects. Including those who have the vaccine. Understanding that base fear will help bridge the divide between groups.
- rotexo 5y ago
  Right, but I see elsewhere that it is mostly about individual freedom. It is hard for me to understand if those two reasons are two separate groups, or if one is an internal reason and the other is the stated reason, for instance. If the latter is the case, it seems like it would be good to have a curious and open conversation to understand the hidden reason. Though that is probably impossible, since there is so little trust surrounding these conversations now.
- moate 5y ago
  Not really? I don't see how you bridge a group worried about a short term existential threat (the virus) and another alleging worry about a long term existential threat (the vaccine) when the two things are 0 sum. By the time group 2 catches up (because years have gone by of the vaccine not causing widespread problems) the threat is gone. Meanwhile the animosity has not truly been diminished because the first group will feel the second is responsible for insert issue pertaining to millions of people willingly not getting vaccinated that caused them pain/suffering. It's almost like many people are "worried" about "long term effects" as just a smoke-screen to run out the clock on the issue...
  - ipaddr 5y ago
    The first group has been told it is the second's group fault. The first group is setup to think negatively about the second group because it deflects from decisions made. Let's say it brings on side effects like early dimentia or something much worse. The first group is setup to feel anger towards the healthy second group. The lucky children under 12 become the future. Decision makers can play this off as we are sorry we didn't know. A recent study (last week) came out showing after three months it starts wearing and you need to get another vaccine. You will have different people at various levels of vaccines shots (1 to 3 and by Jan you could need a fourth). What being vaccinated means based on the number of shots and where you are in the wearoff cycle makes the vac vs unvac divided not based on reality. If you had one shot got a side effect and decided not to get the next shot where does that person fit?

admissionsguy 5y ago

> what would it take for you to change your mind?" In general terms, I would need the society at large to get off the moral high horse and engage in an honest cost/benefit analysis of all covid measures. Isn't it hypocritical that people accuse the young not taking the vaccine of being selfish, while hoarding the vaccines away from vulnerable people in poorer parts of the world?

rootusrootus 5y ago
> Isn't it hypocritical that people accuse the young not taking the vaccine of being selfish, while hoarding the vaccines away from vulnerable people in poorer parts of the world? It can only hypocritical if it is the same people making both arguments.
hendersoon 5y ago
Yes, that is absolutely hypocritical and we should continue to pressure the western world to distribute more vaccine globally before giving booster shots to their own citizens. That said, I'm absolutely getting _my_ booster as soon as I'm eligible. That isn't hypocritical; at that point the decision was made and if I don't take the booster it won't be sent to sub-Saharan Africa.

not2b 5y ago

Someone might be holding out for a reason they can't articulate or justify, so they give have an answer to your question (what would it take to change your mind?) but it might not be the true one or the sufficient one. I hope that this latest change sways some people but I don't think it will be a lot.

kenjackson 5y ago
That works, but only if the reason is one they feel willing to give you. For example, I suspect a really simple answer for a lot of people could be "if it increases the chances of Trump being president in 2024". Or "if Covid killed my wife and some, but not all, of my kids".
- nyokodo 5y ago
  > “if it increases the chances of Trump being president in 2024". Or "if Covid killed my wife and some, but not all, of my kids" These are too sophisticated reasons. More realistic renditions might be “that other tribe gets vaccinated loudly therefore I won’t” and “I’m strong, only the weak get vaccinated.” Of course the same in-group dynamics etc motivate the vaccinated and we’d be lying to ourselves if we thought our actions are purely rational and charitable.
nyokodo 5y ago
> it might not be the true one or the sufficient one. Unless you’re dealing with an extraordinary individual or the issue is relatively trivial then you won’t be told sufficient reasons. A lot of what motivates us is deep down and dumb and we rarely want to admit it even if we’re aware of it which is even rarer. I find that examining reasons to change my own mind is much more fruitful because it’s harder to lie to myself albeit still far too easy.
- peakaboo 5y ago
  For me it's the fact that I'm making the decision based on emotional factors. I don't trust big pharma and I don't trust the vaccines. Should be reason enough. There is plenty of things we don't trust in life, so we don't use those things.

dfxm12 5y ago

What type of responses did you get? I agree, engaging people is a good way to go. I don't know any anti-vaxxers personally, so I have to actively work to remind myself they might not all have the same reasons as the ones I know impersonally (who all happen to be full of misinfo, like Eric Clapton, et al.). There are no silver bullets that lead to peace and harmony, obviously, but a greater understanding of each other is good for many reasons.

chitowneats 5y ago
I would have no problem with vaccine mandates if they were instead immunity mandates. Some people, like many in my family, spent a year and half exposing themselves to keep the electricity running, food packaged, delivered, fulfillment warehouses running, etc. Seems very strange that in the U.S. these people, most of whom are young (which means they are at lower risk from covid but higher risk from vax complications like myocarditis), cannot prove they have active antibodies as a way to meet an "immunity mandate". Instead, they are treated as if they are a threat. As if they are the ones who are overstressing the health care systems. When often instead they are the frontline workers these systems depend on. Many give care in nursing homes and at hospitals (in the case of nurses, a large percentage of whom still refuse the vax). How many health care resources does the average unvaxxed healthy 26 year old consume? A lot less than the chronic smoker, the morbidly obese, the elderly, etc.
- peakaboo 5y ago
  This thing was never about protecting people. Thats why it doesn't make sense to you. These health passes will later be called citizen passes or similar, and you won't be able to do any activity without them. And if you are a difficult person with opinions about this, you will get flagged as a security risk and unable to use that citizen pass. People think I'm joking and it will never happen. But I believe that's exactly where we are heading.
  - chitowneats 5y ago
    I never said I was confused in my comment. Reasonable people can disagree about the necessity of vaccines for every single human. I'm making the case it is not necessary and that it is unethical. I could have gone into how these vaccines would be much more useful given to at-risk populations throughout the world instead of low risk, largely already immune young populations in the West. That's another good angle of this. All that being said, I don't think scare mongering about social credit systems is helpful in this discussion. Most I've talked to who support vax pass are resolutely opposed to China-style social credit systems and I believe such a system would be difficult to implement in the U.S.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

acituan 5y ago

> I recent came across a technique... The moment you start talking about techniques you've already objectified the person across you to something to be finessed over, and as such less than a full person. So many of our recent social-media extremized public debates escalate to the point of denying or diminishing the other side's personhood. They are an "obstacle" to overcome for some greater purpose, and thus we "must" manipulate, coerce or the very least impress conclusions down their throats. The meta-context is that today we are all more psychologically fragile and the breadth of data points we have to reconcile gets wider (in no small part thanks to engagement metrics optimizations). We all turn into fanatics of some sort or other, fueled by this anxiety, including that of self-doubt. At no point we are incentivized to participate in the process of rationality together, we're only incentivized to willfully assert our own conclusions. I see most of the "resistance" as an acting out as a protest for having been left out of this process, including having been honored in anxieties. Notice I have said nothing about the truth value of conclusions, nor am trying to draw a false equivalency of "all-sides-ism", because the sense of participation, or lack thereof, is orthogonal to the truth of content, but hurts just as much when neglected. We've forgot how to be a fellowship of people who share similar fates and see each other as such, we've turned into mere proposition debating machines.

hondo77 5y ago
> ...a protest for having been left out of this process... Because it's not like they live in a representative democracy, right?
- acituan 5y ago
  Representative democracy is a decision-making process. I’m talking about the process that precedes it; of making sense of the world through dialogue.
p_j_w 5y ago
>The moment you start talking about techniques you've already objectified the person across you There's nothing about any sort of technique that is inherent to objects and not people. Techniques are something used to achieve a goal, and if a person is involved in that goal, there's nothing wrong with using that sort of verbiage. >thus we "must" manipulate, coerce or the very least impress conclusions down their throats. You've made any attempt to change someone's mind out to automatically be something that's naturally evil. Ridiculous.

peakaboo 5y ago

This "technique" sends a strong signal to me that your goal is to change the person's mind, not respect his desire to not take the shot.

slumdev 5y ago

> Well, what would it take for you to change your mind? A vaccine that (1) did not use cell lines from aborted fetuses at any point in its discovery, development, testing, or production, and that (2) has been studied for 10 years to determine long-term safety and efficacy like we would do with any other vaccine. What would it take to change your mind?

xdennis 5y ago

> Well, what would it take for you to change your mind? A lot of things, but just the top two would be enough: 1) Being able to sue. If you can sue J&J for baby powder, should be able to sue Pfizer for vaccines if anything goes wrong. 2) Falsifiability in government actions. Many rights have been taken away (some permanently) by saying "we just need to do this and then it will all be over" like "a few weeks to flatten the curve", "the last lockdown", and "x% vaccinated and we'll be back to normal". But when they don't work, the people are blamed, more rights are taken and more restrictions imposed. It's never that the actions were wrong. I expect something like if "70% of people are vaccinated then we expect no more than 5000 cases per day" and if the statement turns out to be false there will be no more vaccine impositions because it clearly will have turned out to be wrong. If something doesn't work you shouldn't double down.

tw04 5y ago
You're on a site centered around technology and don't seem to acknowledge the scientific process... You cannot, with 100% accuracy, model a virus that is mutating in a population that includes the entire planet. We have things we know worked in the past, we try them, and we then modify our next move based on the results. We don't say "well we got that one wrong so now we're just not going to try anything". If every scientist took the approach you're suggesting we'd still be eating raw meat and living in caves.
handoflixue 5y ago
> Being able to sue. Why is suing vital? What's insufficient about the existing National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program? https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/index.html https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/index.html (I'm genuinely unfamiliar with any flaws it might have) > Many rights have been taken away (some permanently) What rights have been permanently removed? For that matter, what RIGHTS have been even temporarily suspended?
- nsxwolf 5y ago
  Many people consider the freedom of movement without constantly having to show papers to be a right, even if it's not explicitly codified in some law or constitution. I could say I have a right to breathe air and someone would probably come around and tell me I'm wrong, but most people have some intuition for what a "natural" right is, and bristle when something encroaches on those.

breck 5y ago

> Well, what would it take for you to change your mind? For me number one would be: if the CDC starts tracking re-infection rate in the non-vaccinated, and puts that data front and center as key KPIs on all their releases.

jedmeyers 5y ago
What do you expect to see from that data alone? How much immunity and for how long the actual covid infection provides?
- breck 5y ago
  > What do you expect to see from that data alone? How much immunity and for how long the actual covid infection provides? Yes, so we can deduce remaining susceptible. The basic model in a pandemic is SIR. Susceptible, Infected, Recovered. Vaxed is a secondary factor. We live in crazy land when I have to explain why we should be tracking Susceptible (computable when you know number infected and reinfection rate). (not to pick on you, just speaking about general trends I'm seeing) Imagine if in computing someone asked, "why should we measure RAM usage?" It's like, the very very basics. Without that, you cannot accurately model and forecast the pandemic. And you can see for yourself how poorly the CDC is still modeling this when they said "vax work great! no masks!" and then "shit! vax don't work as great as we said, masks back on!" It's like they are pretending that natural immunity without a vax does not exist. One of the very basics in epi, both theoretically and empirically from mountains of data. It's crazy town, I tell you. At the individual level you should know this to make the proper conditional decisions. There is scant benefit to be had from the vax if you were infected and recovered naturally (and yes, I've read the Kentucky study, and if that's someone's main argument they're a moron).

technothrasher 5y ago

> I recent came across a technique for having a more substantial discussion and it was to ask: "Well, what would it take for you to change your mind?" Sounds like you should take a look at Street Epistemology. It is a modern version of the Socratic method that asks questions similar to that. The goal is not to make your interlocutor change their mind necessarily, but instead to explore the reasons for the beliefs they hold and whether they may be sufficently justified or not.