5 ms·

You also lose people when you change your mind. There's an entire group of news anchors who dedicate themselves to pointing out where people have flip-flopped.

by xracy 5y ago

You also lose people when you change your mind. There's an entire group of news anchors who dedicate themselves to pointing out where people have flip-flopped. It's pretty common. I agree the not changing your mind is worse, but they also describe this thing as being driven by consensus as doctors, so you're having to change a bunch of people's minds who think they're the very best at what they do. It's a serious failing of that setup. It's somewhat impressive that they ever changed their mind.

stephen_g 5y ago
I feel like bending into that with increased dishonesty only makes that worse though. There's only a 'gotcha' if you change your mind while pretending you were never wrong, if you explain what evidence changed your mind then there's not that much power in pointing out 'flip-flopping'. But at a deeper level, it shows that they should have been more careful with the messaging from the start. The actual message should have been "There's currently not enough evidence to say COVID is airborne" which is a lot easier to correct to "Actually, it appears that it is airborne" than going from saying it definitely wasn't and being completely wrong... The masks thing was also just crazy. Completely indefensible, claiming that "we had to lie because otherwise people would have panic-bought masks" just destroys trust even more into the future...
- mjevans 5y ago
  People DID panic buy... every damned thing anyway. Particularly the toilet paper. I'm just glad my buying habits are to retain a stock of that anyway since I buy it at a warehouse store.
- xracy 5y ago
  9/10 times if you flip-flop, the way it is communicated is not with that level of nuance. So you can absolutely change your mind the correct way with given data, and the way it's communicated is with a headline that says "CDC/WHO FLIP FLOPS ABOUT VIRUS". You don't get to decide how people respond to a flip-flop, so you're strongly incentivized to make them as quiet as possible because it's not valued in our society to learn from your mistakes. We just want people who were correct the first time. If you pick a stock, and it goes up you claim you know something about it. If you pick a stock and it goes down and then up, you still point to the stock that you got correct the first time. Also, if you read the article, it's not that they didn't think it was airborne. It was that they didn't believe in airborne viruses. The common wisdom was that viruses are too heavy to stay airborne long enough for them to think it possible to become sick from that.
thatjoeoverthr 5y ago
It’s certainly strange when people suddenly appear to have changed their mind, without explaining or acknowledging it. A little humility and explanation would help. If a pundit is making a scene of it, go on his show.
KrishnaShripad 5y ago
> You also lose people when you change your mind. There's an entire group of news anchors who dedicate themselves to pointing out where people have flip-flopped. It's pretty common. I think you are talking about Fauci's flip-flop here. The point is not about his flip-flop on mask mandate. The point was about his confidence. You do not go and say confidently, on National TV, that masks don't stop the virus and that people should stop buying masks from stores as it is needed for emergency workers. Then turn around half a year later, after the pandemic is in full swing and say that masks are important as it stops the virus. Both times he said it he said that it is based on credible scientific evidence. This is what ticks people off. If you do not know something and have no facts to back up your claim, don't say it. If you want to still say it (as you don't want people to hoard masks), appeal to the people to not hoard masks out of fear as those masks are needed for the frontline workers. Better still, get the US Government to buy those masks or ban stores from selling masks to general public until you have equipped frontline workers. Then ease the ban. Do not lie by saying that masks don't prevent virus as it sends a negative message and reassurance that everything is fine. Then turn around half a year later and say it is dangerous! This sort of flip-flop is not acceptable to anyone. Especially when it comes to disaster response. You are an expert for a reason. People trust your words. You are in a position of power when it comes to your own field. Don't degrade/misuse that position. The reason WHO lost its credibility is because of it shutting down alternative takes, continuous flip-flops and ever changing directives/mandates. It would have been better if WHO started by saying "We don't know. It is a novel virus. We are still learning as we go along. We will issue directives as and when we get more information. Please note that these directives are temporary and only based on evidence we have right in front of us. If things change, we will keep you informed. We still aren't sure what to make of it". This is all WHO needed to do. This would have instilled a bit of fear yes (which in hindsight was actually needed to make lockdowns effective and mask mandates effective). You took away the "fear" factor at the very beginning of the virus outbreak and then when people got the message, you try to tell them to now start fearing the virus. Why would people buy your argument? And how many of them will take you seriously after such a drastic flip-flop? Rather than confidently put out statements that the virus isn't airborne or doesn't spread through contact WHO should have been honest from the start. That it doesn't know anything and is learning as we go along. That the virus maybe dangerous and that we have to be cautious. Another big one is that WHO announced it is not human-to-human transmissible: https://twitter.com/who/status/1217043229427761152 https://twitter.com/who/status/1217043229427761152 "Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China." There was no disclaimer to say that this investigation is ongoing. That this preliminary data collected will have a final investigation as well. That it can change as more data becomes available. Communication is key in disaster response. You do not say anything with 100% certainty if you do not know it to be true.
nstart 5y ago
I don't know if this has been tested, but I'd venture a guess that this has something to do with how one flip flops. Exhibit A: "This fact X is correct and we as institution C Org have institutional knowledge that makes us right and anything otherwise wrong". Changing this later to "This fact Y (that people were asking about, shh) is true. We won't mention that it contradicts X that much. We won't say we were wrong. We will say that as institution C Org, we have institutional knowledge that makes us right and anything otherwise is wrong" VS Exhibit B: "We as A Org, have reason to believe that X is the most true thing we know given current knowledge. We acknowledge fact Y exists and are actively investigating it and its implications. For people searching for guidance, A Org recommends actions S,T, and U. We will continue to research and revise information where necessary" --- I feel like Exhibit A, which is something I see a lot from government entities (confirmation bias makes me want to add "in the US") makes a changing of mind a thing of pride since you've staked a bet on it. A bet which usually is condescending and says "I'm right, you're wrong" Exhibit B leaves the hatches open while still getting a firm message down based on today's knowledge. Sadly there's no A/B testing we can turn to to know which approach would be better. But just out of sensibility, I wish more entities engaged in the latter approach
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  > Exhibit A: "This fact X is correct and we as institution C Org have institutional knowledge that makes us right and anything otherwise wrong". I've noticed a pattern where people will take this as their default assumption, and even selectively read evidence to the contrary in order to maintain that assumption. For example, a while ago on HN[1], someone posted this link[2] about a CDC announcement titled "CDC director says data 'suggests that vaccinated people do not carry the virus'". The claim was that the CDC director, Walensky, insisted that vaccinated people do not carry COVID and insisted that they were 90% protected against infection, and the CDC wouldn't walk back on those claims. However, when reading the article, it shows that the assumption that the CDC was using Exhibit A's method in their announcement was wrong, and the CDC actually used the more reasonable method in your Exhibit B: > Walensky was referring to a new CDC study of nearly 4,000 front-line workers, some vaccinated and some not, who tested themselves weekly for COVID-19 infections between December and March. > But more data is still necessary to say so definitively, which is why researchers are recruiting thousands of college students across the country to find out more about the likelihood of asymptomatic spread of this virus among vaccinated people. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30649479 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30649479 [2] https://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-director-data-vaccinated-people-do-not-carry-covid-19-2021-3?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-director-data-vaccinated...
nabla9 5y ago
The article was a good and balanced piece looking from the all aspects. Only thing you see is people picking only quotes that help to propagate the nihilist condemnation of WHO as corrupt and incompetent. The evidence for airborne transmission was really low quality at first. It's pretty normal, but very unfortunate, that people get primed to their early experience of new theory and can't see above it.

by xracy 5y ago

stephen_g 5y ago

I feel like bending into that with increased dishonesty only makes that worse though. There's only a 'gotcha' if you change your mind while pretending you were never wrong, if you explain what evidence changed your mind then there's not that much power in pointing out 'flip-flopping'. But at a deeper level, it shows that they should have been more careful with the messaging from the start. The actual message should have been "There's currently not enough evidence to say COVID is airborne" which is a lot easier to correct to "Actually, it appears that it is airborne" than going from saying it definitely wasn't and being completely wrong... The masks thing was also just crazy. Completely indefensible, claiming that "we had to lie because otherwise people would have panic-bought masks" just destroys trust even more into the future...

mjevans 5y ago
People DID panic buy... every damned thing anyway. Particularly the toilet paper. I'm just glad my buying habits are to retain a stock of that anyway since I buy it at a warehouse store.
xracy 5y ago
9/10 times if you flip-flop, the way it is communicated is not with that level of nuance. So you can absolutely change your mind the correct way with given data, and the way it's communicated is with a headline that says "CDC/WHO FLIP FLOPS ABOUT VIRUS". You don't get to decide how people respond to a flip-flop, so you're strongly incentivized to make them as quiet as possible because it's not valued in our society to learn from your mistakes. We just want people who were correct the first time. If you pick a stock, and it goes up you claim you know something about it. If you pick a stock and it goes down and then up, you still point to the stock that you got correct the first time. Also, if you read the article, it's not that they didn't think it was airborne. It was that they didn't believe in airborne viruses. The common wisdom was that viruses are too heavy to stay airborne long enough for them to think it possible to become sick from that.

thatjoeoverthr 5y ago

It’s certainly strange when people suddenly appear to have changed their mind, without explaining or acknowledging it. A little humility and explanation would help. If a pundit is making a scene of it, go on his show.

KrishnaShripad 5y ago

> You also lose people when you change your mind. There's an entire group of news anchors who dedicate themselves to pointing out where people have flip-flopped. It's pretty common. I think you are talking about Fauci's flip-flop here. The point is not about his flip-flop on mask mandate. The point was about his confidence. You do not go and say confidently, on National TV, that masks don't stop the virus and that people should stop buying masks from stores as it is needed for emergency workers. Then turn around half a year later, after the pandemic is in full swing and say that masks are important as it stops the virus. Both times he said it he said that it is based on credible scientific evidence. This is what ticks people off. If you do not know something and have no facts to back up your claim, don't say it. If you want to still say it (as you don't want people to hoard masks), appeal to the people to not hoard masks out of fear as those masks are needed for the frontline workers. Better still, get the US Government to buy those masks or ban stores from selling masks to general public until you have equipped frontline workers. Then ease the ban. Do not lie by saying that masks don't prevent virus as it sends a negative message and reassurance that everything is fine. Then turn around half a year later and say it is dangerous! This sort of flip-flop is not acceptable to anyone. Especially when it comes to disaster response. You are an expert for a reason. People trust your words. You are in a position of power when it comes to your own field. Don't degrade/misuse that position. The reason WHO lost its credibility is because of it shutting down alternative takes, continuous flip-flops and ever changing directives/mandates. It would have been better if WHO started by saying "We don't know. It is a novel virus. We are still learning as we go along. We will issue directives as and when we get more information. Please note that these directives are temporary and only based on evidence we have right in front of us. If things change, we will keep you informed. We still aren't sure what to make of it". This is all WHO needed to do. This would have instilled a bit of fear yes (which in hindsight was actually needed to make lockdowns effective and mask mandates effective). You took away the "fear" factor at the very beginning of the virus outbreak and then when people got the message, you try to tell them to now start fearing the virus. Why would people buy your argument? And how many of them will take you seriously after such a drastic flip-flop? Rather than confidently put out statements that the virus isn't airborne or doesn't spread through contact WHO should have been honest from the start. That it doesn't know anything and is learning as we go along. That the virus maybe dangerous and that we have to be cautious. Another big one is that WHO announced it is not human-to-human transmissible: https://twitter.com/who/status/1217043229427761152 https://twitter.com/who/status/1217043229427761152 "Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China." There was no disclaimer to say that this investigation is ongoing. That this preliminary data collected will have a final investigation as well. That it can change as more data becomes available. Communication is key in disaster response. You do not say anything with 100% certainty if you do not know it to be true.

nstart 5y ago

I don't know if this has been tested, but I'd venture a guess that this has something to do with how one flip flops. Exhibit A: "This fact X is correct and we as institution C Org have institutional knowledge that makes us right and anything otherwise wrong". Changing this later to "This fact Y (that people were asking about, shh) is true. We won't mention that it contradicts X that much. We won't say we were wrong. We will say that as institution C Org, we have institutional knowledge that makes us right and anything otherwise is wrong" VS Exhibit B: "We as A Org, have reason to believe that X is the most true thing we know given current knowledge. We acknowledge fact Y exists and are actively investigating it and its implications. For people searching for guidance, A Org recommends actions S,T, and U. We will continue to research and revise information where necessary" --- I feel like Exhibit A, which is something I see a lot from government entities (confirmation bias makes me want to add "in the US") makes a changing of mind a thing of pride since you've staked a bet on it. A bet which usually is condescending and says "I'm right, you're wrong" Exhibit B leaves the hatches open while still getting a firm message down based on today's knowledge. Sadly there's no A/B testing we can turn to to know which approach would be better. But just out of sensibility, I wish more entities engaged in the latter approach

heavyset_go 5y ago
> Exhibit A: "This fact X is correct and we as institution C Org have institutional knowledge that makes us right and anything otherwise wrong". I've noticed a pattern where people will take this as their default assumption, and even selectively read evidence to the contrary in order to maintain that assumption. For example, a while ago on HN[1], someone posted this link[2] about a CDC announcement titled "CDC director says data 'suggests that vaccinated people do not carry the virus'". The claim was that the CDC director, Walensky, insisted that vaccinated people do not carry COVID and insisted that they were 90% protected against infection, and the CDC wouldn't walk back on those claims. However, when reading the article, it shows that the assumption that the CDC was using Exhibit A's method in their announcement was wrong, and the CDC actually used the more reasonable method in your Exhibit B: > Walensky was referring to a new CDC study of nearly 4,000 front-line workers, some vaccinated and some not, who tested themselves weekly for COVID-19 infections between December and March. > But more data is still necessary to say so definitively, which is why researchers are recruiting thousands of college students across the country to find out more about the likelihood of asymptomatic spread of this virus among vaccinated people. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30649479 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30649479 [2] https://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-director-data-vaccinated-people-do-not-carry-covid-19-2021-3?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-director-data-vaccinated...

nabla9 5y ago

The article was a good and balanced piece looking from the all aspects. Only thing you see is people picking only quotes that help to propagate the nihilist condemnation of WHO as corrupt and incompetent. The evidence for airborne transmission was really low quality at first. It's pretty normal, but very unfortunate, that people get primed to their early experience of new theory and can't see above it.