3 ms·

I think one needs to have different standards for an academic discussion versus a public health campaign. For example, taking drinking and driving. If we're ta

I think one needs to have different standards for an academic discussion versus a public health campaign. For example, taking drinking and driving. If we're talking academically, it's an incredibly nuanced topic, and I'm sure the actual risk depends a ton on the individual, their skills, their reaction times, their built-up alcohol tolerance, and many other factors. But if we're talking about actual individuals getting hammered and then grabbing the keys, then "Don't Drink And Drive. Ever." is about the right level for the discussion. And I think part of the reason that it's so important to hammer home messages like that is that the people who want to do the thing that's dangerous for others will seize upon the nuances of the academic discussion, use anything that gives them permission, and absolutely ignore the rest of it. That's true of drunk drivers for sure. It was also true of smokers before they lost that battle. And of course the Andrew Wakefields of the world are great at building a whole grift around that.

u32480932048 2y ago
But this falls apart immediately, in much the same way as the rest of it. If someone tells me I'm incapable of driving because I had a glass of wine with dinner, I'm likely to laugh at them and disregard everything they say after that, because I now perceive them as someone who understands neither drinking nor driving. It doesn't take a PhD to understand that people react differently to alcohol (etc, etc). Most people I know figured that out before they were 18 and had a pretty robust understanding by their early 20's. The right level of discussion, IMHO, is not paternalistic, absolutist condescension, but one that promotes self-awareness and enables people to appraise individual risk in specific situations. (Be careful: if you assess wrong, you die or go to jail!) I'd also disagree that the people who excuse their behavior like this are seizing upon nuances of academic discourse, but rather rejecting an insultingly-simplistic slogan held up as some kind of absolute truth. It reminds me of a line from this thing my dad had framed, to the effect of "Be wary of giving advice: the fool won't heed it and the wise don't need it." Somewhere in the middle are reasonably-intelligent, non-sociopathic adults who need to understand the limits/risks/benefits so they can make informed decisions. To the original point, I think we'd have seen much better results and much less collateral/residual damage if we were in the habit of "ELI18" and not "ELI5".
- wpietri 2y ago
  I look forward to seeing your evidence for that theory. But you write a lot about what you want and what you find personally offensive, but not at all about your experiences getting people to do things, so I don't see much reason to think your personal tastes tell us much about how people actually change behavior.

u32480932048 2y ago

But this falls apart immediately, in much the same way as the rest of it. If someone tells me I'm incapable of driving because I had a glass of wine with dinner, I'm likely to laugh at them and disregard everything they say after that, because I now perceive them as someone who understands neither drinking nor driving. It doesn't take a PhD to understand that people react differently to alcohol (etc, etc). Most people I know figured that out before they were 18 and had a pretty robust understanding by their early 20's. The right level of discussion, IMHO, is not paternalistic, absolutist condescension, but one that promotes self-awareness and enables people to appraise individual risk in specific situations. (Be careful: if you assess wrong, you die or go to jail!) I'd also disagree that the people who excuse their behavior like this are seizing upon nuances of academic discourse, but rather rejecting an insultingly-simplistic slogan held up as some kind of absolute truth. It reminds me of a line from this thing my dad had framed, to the effect of "Be wary of giving advice: the fool won't heed it and the wise don't need it." Somewhere in the middle are reasonably-intelligent, non-sociopathic adults who need to understand the limits/risks/benefits so they can make informed decisions. To the original point, I think we'd have seen much better results and much less collateral/residual damage if we were in the habit of "ELI18" and not "ELI5".

wpietri 2y ago
I look forward to seeing your evidence for that theory. But you write a lot about what you want and what you find personally offensive, but not at all about your experiences getting people to do things, so I don't see much reason to think your personal tastes tell us much about how people actually change behavior.