3 ms·
' it's impossible to have any meaningful progress appealing to the feelings, e.g. talking about "infants having cancer"' Is also impossible to have any meaning
by readthenotes1 2y ago
' it's impossible to have any meaningful progress appealing to the feelings, e.g. talking about "infants having cancer"'
Is also impossible to have any meaningful progress without appealing to feelings.
That is why politicians will often lead with a heartfelt story about a singular person to make us empathize and rarely use data or anecdata.
(I cannot remember the book that expose me to this observation. It's cited several studies that showed that a story such as "just before I came here, I ran into John. He has suffered from leukemia since he was a child in the beautiful islands of Tahiti, wherein he was dosed with radiation from nearby nuclear tests" fared much better in persuading people to do something then "there is a 76% greater likelihood of developing childhood leukemia in Tahiti then elsewhere in the world")
- maratc 2y agoThe question here is whether we are on a platform for politicians or are trying to get elected, or we are on a platform for tech people and trying to get any kind of a scientific discussion, especially with regards to the nuclear energy and its place in a global warming. For the former, personal examples are the way to go. For the latter, not so much. Personal examples specifically don't work in a public funds allocation scenario, where one politician meets John (and his ailment) while another meets Mary (and her ailment) but the funds can be diverted either to treat the Johns or the Marys (but not both). At least QALYs have the right answer for that.
- readthenotes1 2y agoAnd yet those funds are allocated by politicians, probably with more concern about campaign donations, jobs in their district, and looking good for the camera...