Scrutable

I've been intrigued over the last couple of weeks by how different folk, espousing opposite views, argue or discuss their point.

This has arisen in the off topic section of another forum one of my internet alter egos inhabits in a thread about flu vaccination and whether to or not.

Strangely, I'm in favour and so are a good number of the more science-y or technical folk there. There are a number who are agin.

Those agin are rapidly descending into CT Land, trotting out all the usual anti-vax tropes and clichés, moving off into Gish Gallops, refusing to address points or answer direct questions, ad homming the bejaysus out of the strawmen, shunting those goal posts around a treat and generally accusing the rest of us of having been paid off.

Those of us in favour are all trying to be reasonable and polite (I think we are all accustomed to the idea of write for the on-the-fence reader), referring to established science, proper documentation, pointing out that whatever is either biologically implausible or has been debunked, staying on a certain topic and not being drawn into slanging matches.

The closest I have got to answers about my questions on conspiracies is a load of "knowing" mutters and mumbles. No-one has yet picked up on the comments a couple of us made about the 1918 pandemic and how it hit the fittest and healthiest most (oh, yes, we've had folk claiming they are too fit and healthy to get ill).

I'm curious as to why the styles, let alone the content, is soooooo different.

When opinions and beliefs are not founded on real evidence there is often a strong emotional component. Often these beliefs are seen as part of someone's identity as an individual or part of a group. Changing or relinquishing these beliefs is therefore hard and any challenge to them is potentially upsetting. I've seen this many times with my mum who will cling onto any belief no matter how much evidence you show her and then get all emotional and passive aggressive. Admitting she is wrong would mean admitting all of her like-minded friends are wrong. It's about who you think you are and who you trust. We may not like being proved wrong and may argue the toss until the evidence is overwhelming but generally we evidence-based folk will admit we are wrong (and perhaps be upset even so).

murmur wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 29, 2019 10:23 am

(oh, yes, we've had folk claiming they are too fit and healthy to get ill).

We have had front-line ward staff also giving the same reason for not having the flu vaccine, along with the old favourite of it gave them the flu last time.

Someone in the gym this morning was saying that exercise suppresses the immune system, which is what I've heard often, but it would seem that is wrong .

I'm really fit and healthy. Why I got flu three winters ago I could barely get out of bed for three weeks and it was another two for full recovery. But I guess that's as much of an anecdote as what you were told.

Interesting article Tessa.

Apparently "we know that exercise can improve your immune response to a flu jab"; it's a shame I didn't read this a bit sooner. Had my flu jab the other day and I've done zero exercise since. I'll have to try to remember this for next year.

Tessa K wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 29, 2019 10:31 am

When opinions and beliefs are not founded on real evidence there is often a strong emotional component. Often these beliefs are seen as part of someone's identity as an individual or part of a group. Changing or relinquishing these beliefs is therefore hard and any challenge to them is potentially upsetting. I've seen this many times with my mum who will cling onto any belief no matter how much evidence you show her and then get all emotional and passive aggressive. Admitting she is wrong would mean admitting all of her like-minded friends are wrong. It's about who you think you are and who you trust. We may not like being proved wrong and may argue the toss until the evidence is overwhelming but generally we evidence-based folk will admit we are wrong (and perhaps be upset even so).

I agree with all of this apart from the first sentence. I'm not entirely sure why all this shouldn't apply to opinions that are founded on real evidence.

Re Warumich's point, if we do believe strongly and emotionally about something that is properly evidence based, do we need to disclose that as a COI if writing about it?

warumich wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 29, 2019 11:01 pm

Tessa K wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 29, 2019 10:31 am

When opinions and beliefs are not founded on real evidence there is often a strong emotional component. Often these beliefs are seen as part of someone's identity as an individual or part of a group. Changing or relinquishing these beliefs is therefore hard and any challenge to them is potentially upsetting. I've seen this many times with my mum who will cling onto any belief no matter how much evidence you show her and then get all emotional and passive aggressive. Admitting she is wrong would mean admitting all of her like-minded friends are wrong. It's about who you think you are and who you trust. We may not like being proved wrong and may argue the toss until the evidence is overwhelming but generally we evidence-based folk will admit we are wrong (and perhaps be upset even so).

I agree with all of this apart from the first sentence. I'm not entirely sure why all this shouldn't apply to opinions that are founded on real evidence.

Yes, it can be hard to give up a position - hence the saying science progresses one funeral at a time. But in theory at least if you show someone of a more scientific mind enough evidence they are more likely to shift their positions. Or at least enough people will voice opposition to inform the undecided. One of the original purposes of Ben Goldacre's (pbuh) talks and books was to help people make informed choices and debunk myths about science, healthcare, alternative sh.t etc.

Tessa K wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 29, 2019 10:31 am

When opinions and beliefs are not founded on real evidence there is often a strong emotional component. Often these beliefs are seen as part of someone's identity as an individual or part of a group. Changing or relinquishing these beliefs is therefore hard and any challenge to them is potentially upsetting. I've seen this many times with my mum who will cling onto any belief no matter how much evidence you show her and then get all emotional and passive aggressive. Admitting she is wrong would mean admitting all of her like-minded friends are wrong. It's about who you think you are and who you trust. We may not like being proved wrong and may argue the toss until the evidence is overwhelming but generally we evidence-based folk will admit we are wrong (and perhaps be upset even so).

Going along with the group is definitely a thing. People like the idea of being a rebel/iconoclast/whatever partly just for the sake of going against the group*. Yet most of of us also need the support of a group of like-minded folk, so that ought to limit the scope for taking things too far. If you were compelled to challenge the think of every group you were part of, you would end up a Billy no-mates, so that would be a hard road to tread. Scepticism gorn mad you might say.

The problem is when a damagingly wrong view (as opposed to benign nuttiness which we all probably have a bit of) belongs to a sufficiently large group for ordinary folk to feel safe there. If it becomes too big, it will become the establishment and people will want to rebel against it, but clearly these groups can get big enough for real damage to occur. I am not sure how to deal with this, but banging on about being mainstream may not be the way. Perhaps subtly indicating how the orthodox view is actually kicking against something big and sinister might be better. Tell stories of plucky individuals fighting a cause, rather than painting a picture of a faceless behemoth. Market an alternative group where it is just as warm and cuddly etc.

* for academics, journalists etc. there are career opportunities for being an iconoclast, every discipline has a few. But just a few, there is not much room in the niche.

I've had a few face to face conversations recently with anti-vax people and it quickly becomes very clear with most of them that we're adhering to completely different rules when it comes to evidence and decision making.

The flu vaccine is a particular minefield because its efficacy is so variable; throw in a couple of Guillain-Barré scares and some dubious anecdotes about weakening the immune system as well as some Medical Industrial Complex CTs and it can be hard to shift viewpoints, particularly when the pro-vax argument is mostly about population level risk types whereas the anti crowd are (frequently, ime, anyway) fearful about individual risk from a medical intervention.

One of the bigger sources of animus (again, ime) with online discourse on the subject is that it is nigh on impossible to gauge the emotional/visceral reaction of people on the other side of the debate. It is far easier when face to face to slow down and focus on particular misconceptions which are acting as a fan for emotional fires. In a recent debate I spent *ages* trying to get the point over that infant mortality as recorded in VAERS does not have (except in very, very, very rare cases) a causative link to vaccination. It took ages to get that point across and the person I was talking to absolutely believed the link was causal and they were *extremely* upset by this (their) "fact".

It got worse...

Someone introduced a new twist on argumentum ad YouTubium by citing a David Icke video...

I was having quite a bit of fun playing with that particular chew toy, but the mods have removed all that person's posts and our replies to them for trolling. I'll have to look somewhere else for today's fun.

I thought this was going to be about One Direction.

GD, take yourself outside and give yourself a good talking too!