5 ms·

Empathy. I agree with op; the anti-vax debate is not only the parents' failure to vaxinate their children, it is also ours for failing to convince them. The c

Empathy. I agree with op; the anti-vax debate is not only the parents' failure to vaxinate their children, it is also ours for failing to convince them. The confrontational tone of this debate achieves nothing but making people defensive. And that's not good for anyone. Science and satire are woefully inadequate means of persuasion for many people. Empathy is typically well worth a try.

kstrauser 12y ago
That's only true to a point. We knew for decades that cigarette smoke is terrible for you - and referred to them as "coffin nails" as early as 1888 - but people keep starting the habit. What more education could we possibly give that smoking is bad? People get it in their head to believe and do dumb things, regardless of how reasonably or empathetically they're told that those are dumb things. You probably can't convince hard-core antivaxxers. They are likely lost causes. At this point, probably the best we can do is to so relentlessly ridicule the position that it becomes an embarrassing opinion to hold. For example, could you imagine your neighbors learning that you were a Flat Earther? No; you'd be the block laughingstock. That's what needs to happen to the antivax delusion.
- k-mcgrady 12y ago
  >> "What more education could we possibly give that smoking is bad?" I think most people who smoke now know this but choose to do so anyway because it's a trade off. They enjoying smoking enough to accept the risks. As long as that doesn't hurt me, fine. Anti-vaxxers are causing problems for the rest of society. In fact they aren't hurting themselves at all, they are hurting their children and other people's. With smoking we could minimise the negative externalities for non-smokers (ban on smoking in public places etc.). With anti-vaxxers that's difficult without excluding them from society completely.
  - XorNot 12y ago
    No they don't. They're addicted and don't want to admit. Everything else is window dressing to that.
    - philwelch 12y ago
      That explains smokers over the age of about 35-40, but what about everyone else? Why did they start?
- stolio 12y ago
  > At this point, probably the best we can do is to so relentlessly ridicule the position that it becomes an embarrassing opinion to hold I'm so sad that this is a solution for so many things these days. Science isn't the social justice movement, we have evidence. If people want to bully others for being racist or homophobic, whatever, but that's not how science works. All we have to do to "win" the argument is deescalate it emotionally and make it about calmly and rationally looking at the evidence. That's how science wins, not by marginalizing anybody who disagrees with us. And when people ask how we know that science works, point at all the technology of the modern world. The phone in their pocket, the airplanes they fly in, the toilets that make their poop disappear, the International Space Station floating around the earth, the electricity in their wall sockets. We don't place blind faith in science, we believe in it because it works.
  - kstrauser 12y ago
    You're right - for the long game. Stick with it for a century or two, and hopefully a majority will believe in geologic-time evolution. That hasn't actually happened yet in America because people keep coming along to loudly shout down science, but maybe some day. Public health does not have the luxury of waiting centuries for naysayers to die out. Whooping cough won't do us the favor of not striking while we build consensus. I strongly believe in the correctness of your approach. I just don't think that's an option here.
    - stolio 12y ago
      I agree in the sense that we shouldn't let unvaccinated kids go to school and risk the health of other kids. But I also think it's important not to poison the long-term approach in the process. I know a lot of anti-science people and for many of them it stems from a few really bad experiences where somebody just beat them over the head with science. Then they latch on to any crackpot who claims they're about to revolutionize science and do away with "scientism."
  - philwelch 12y ago
    That tactic didn't work for evolution or climate change, why should it suddenly start working for vaccination? The problem with being a good empiricist is that you start to find that your reasons for believing certain things differ very widely from those of other people.
falcolas 12y ago
How can you use empathy to break past the fact their entire ego is now wound up in their decision being the correct one? Changing your point of view in spite of your ego requires some form rationality; no amount of empathy can make up for this lack. No, I believe that the correct answer is a well funded marketing campaign. Every Jenny McCarthy needs to be countered with two Angelina Jolees. Every study published in a scientific magazine needs to be countered with one each in Time, Newsweek, and the WSJ. Every commercial needs to be bought out with prime time, big budget commercials. Doing it this way ensures that the proper message gets to a person in the method they prefer, and in a way where they can use their standard values to pick the answer, as opposed to having to protect their ego against someone else.
markvdb 12y ago
The anti-vax thing is not a debate, just like the creationism thing is not a debate. It should not be treated as such. It's a question of how to deal with irresponsible acts of able-minded adults threatening childrens health. Empathy and education may help, but in the end, no deviation from the scientifically proven right way can be allowed, lest children be threatened by diseases we've conquered decades ago. So inform and educate to the extent possible. Then if that fails, sue them for parental neglect and passive biological warfare or whatever. This is creationism/"intelligent design" all over, but with real consequences in the real world. I'm prepared to accept a lot of relatively harmless idiocy, but this is where I pull the line. And I think John Rawls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls#The_Original_Position http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls#The_Original_Positio... ) would agree with me.
- markvdb 12y ago
  I was deliberately using hyperbole above, stating: "Then if that fails, sue them for [...] passive biological warfare or whatever." Hyperbole, an exaggeration for dramatic effect. Clearly, endangering people's lives like this in reality is more like drunk driving: a serious punishable offense, but not even remotely in the same range as "passive biological warfare".

kstrauser 12y ago

That's only true to a point. We knew for decades that cigarette smoke is terrible for you - and referred to them as "coffin nails" as early as 1888 - but people keep starting the habit. What more education could we possibly give that smoking is bad? People get it in their head to believe and do dumb things, regardless of how reasonably or empathetically they're told that those are dumb things. You probably can't convince hard-core antivaxxers. They are likely lost causes. At this point, probably the best we can do is to so relentlessly ridicule the position that it becomes an embarrassing opinion to hold. For example, could you imagine your neighbors learning that you were a Flat Earther? No; you'd be the block laughingstock. That's what needs to happen to the antivax delusion.

k-mcgrady 12y ago
>> "What more education could we possibly give that smoking is bad?" I think most people who smoke now know this but choose to do so anyway because it's a trade off. They enjoying smoking enough to accept the risks. As long as that doesn't hurt me, fine. Anti-vaxxers are causing problems for the rest of society. In fact they aren't hurting themselves at all, they are hurting their children and other people's. With smoking we could minimise the negative externalities for non-smokers (ban on smoking in public places etc.). With anti-vaxxers that's difficult without excluding them from society completely.
- XorNot 12y ago
  No they don't. They're addicted and don't want to admit. Everything else is window dressing to that.
  - philwelch 12y ago
    That explains smokers over the age of about 35-40, but what about everyone else? Why did they start?
stolio 12y ago
> At this point, probably the best we can do is to so relentlessly ridicule the position that it becomes an embarrassing opinion to hold I'm so sad that this is a solution for so many things these days. Science isn't the social justice movement, we have evidence. If people want to bully others for being racist or homophobic, whatever, but that's not how science works. All we have to do to "win" the argument is deescalate it emotionally and make it about calmly and rationally looking at the evidence. That's how science wins, not by marginalizing anybody who disagrees with us. And when people ask how we know that science works, point at all the technology of the modern world. The phone in their pocket, the airplanes they fly in, the toilets that make their poop disappear, the International Space Station floating around the earth, the electricity in their wall sockets. We don't place blind faith in science, we believe in it because it works.
- kstrauser 12y ago
  You're right - for the long game. Stick with it for a century or two, and hopefully a majority will believe in geologic-time evolution. That hasn't actually happened yet in America because people keep coming along to loudly shout down science, but maybe some day. Public health does not have the luxury of waiting centuries for naysayers to die out. Whooping cough won't do us the favor of not striking while we build consensus. I strongly believe in the correctness of your approach. I just don't think that's an option here.
  - stolio 12y ago
    I agree in the sense that we shouldn't let unvaccinated kids go to school and risk the health of other kids. But I also think it's important not to poison the long-term approach in the process. I know a lot of anti-science people and for many of them it stems from a few really bad experiences where somebody just beat them over the head with science. Then they latch on to any crackpot who claims they're about to revolutionize science and do away with "scientism."
- philwelch 12y ago
  That tactic didn't work for evolution or climate change, why should it suddenly start working for vaccination? The problem with being a good empiricist is that you start to find that your reasons for believing certain things differ very widely from those of other people.

falcolas 12y ago

How can you use empathy to break past the fact their entire ego is now wound up in their decision being the correct one? Changing your point of view in spite of your ego requires some form rationality; no amount of empathy can make up for this lack. No, I believe that the correct answer is a well funded marketing campaign. Every Jenny McCarthy needs to be countered with two Angelina Jolees. Every study published in a scientific magazine needs to be countered with one each in Time, Newsweek, and the WSJ. Every commercial needs to be bought out with prime time, big budget commercials. Doing it this way ensures that the proper message gets to a person in the method they prefer, and in a way where they can use their standard values to pick the answer, as opposed to having to protect their ego against someone else.

markvdb 12y ago

The anti-vax thing is not a debate, just like the creationism thing is not a debate. It should not be treated as such. It's a question of how to deal with irresponsible acts of able-minded adults threatening childrens health. Empathy and education may help, but in the end, no deviation from the scientifically proven right way can be allowed, lest children be threatened by diseases we've conquered decades ago. So inform and educate to the extent possible. Then if that fails, sue them for parental neglect and passive biological warfare or whatever. This is creationism/"intelligent design" all over, but with real consequences in the real world. I'm prepared to accept a lot of relatively harmless idiocy, but this is where I pull the line. And I think John Rawls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls#The_Original_Position http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls#The_Original_Positio... ) would agree with me.

markvdb 12y ago
I was deliberately using hyperbole above, stating: "Then if that fails, sue them for [...] passive biological warfare or whatever." Hyperbole, an exaggeration for dramatic effect. Clearly, endangering people's lives like this in reality is more like drunk driving: a serious punishable offense, but not even remotely in the same range as "passive biological warfare".