|
gninjagnome posted:You take it twice (separated by 1 month) the first time you get it as a baby. That explains the two before 1 year. Uh huh. What about the five times it's listed at age 4? Also, can someone explain the reasoning behind "well, protecting my children from X dangerous diseases is common sense, but X+Y? That's far too much!"?
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 07:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 14:30 |
|
|
Disinterested posted:I think that's highly debatable on an individual basis. In my view the unethical dimension is entirely the toxic effect of turning it in to a categorical imperative. Which still makes it unethical, but not in the same way. shut up
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 07:59
|
|
|
Moxie posted:If vaccines didn't exist and the diseases they protect against were still endemic and ultimately killing or crippling a significant fraction of kids, I'm thinking anti-vaxxers would jump all over the chance to have their families vaccinated. It's an obvious advantage. Honestly that's part of the issue. My Mom grew up in an era when polio ruled the land. My Grandfather bought a fishing shack so my mom, my uncle, and my aunt would be somewhere safe during the summer when polio tended to spread. It's hard to explain how great vaccines were seen to people who grew up with horrible childhood diseases, to people who have no experience with those diseases. When you look at some of the personal exemptions for vaccines, at the time they were written, outside of a few religious kooks, no sane person would refuse to vaccinate their kids.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 10:40
|
|
|
thrakkorzog posted:Honestly that's part of the issue. My Mom grew up in an era when polio ruled the land. My Grandfather bought a fishing shack so my mom, my uncle, and my aunt would be somewhere safe during the summer when polio tended to spread. It probably applies to the naturalist movement on a general level. The modern urban and suburban classes are so divorced from what is actual nature that it has taken on a new and mythical meaning to them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 12:47
|
|
|
I had a good laugh reading the meltdown article in the San Jose Mercury about local anti-vaxxers getting mad over the thought of new more stringent legislation. One mom said she will take her kids out of public school, which will then damage the school's funding and overall attendance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Uh huh. What about the five times it's listed at age 4? No clue about that, I just knew about the two when you first get it, because my daughter just went though it. Also weird that you only get 2 flu shots between ages 1 and 4.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
etalian posted:I had a good laugh reading the meltdown article in the San Jose Mercury about local anti-vaxxers getting mad over the thought of new more stringent legislation.  I don't think I can trust that paper.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
Dan Kahan and Cultural Cognition Effortpost website: Cultural Cognition at Yale (The website's really well-witten and run, give it a look! All images in this post are taken from that site, where they're explained at greater length.) Conflict of Interest statement: I've used CultCog a little bit in some projects, but I'm not affiliated with Kahan or the CultCog project. The dude is, however, a good friend of my advisor. Take that for whatever it's worth. NOTE: This is a ton of  , but I'm just scraping the surface of a really complicated area, one in which I am not an expert (I just present at national policy conferences in front of members of congress about it). This stuff is easy to exaggerate, or abuse, and reading this post doesn't even really make you knowledgeable about it- any more than reading the USPol thread earns you a law degree. If you want to know more, use the website- Kahan's people are great in that they've gone to a tremendous amount of effort (and effectively given up a lot of money) to make just about everything they write free and relatively accessible. Seriously, go there.Cultural Cognition of Risk Theory The basic idea of Cultural Cognition of Risk Theory is that people's cultural affiliations influence how they evaluate risks and information- risks to themselves, and risks to society. In cases of uncertainty, it's a sort of heuristic process or bias that informs them on what is important or unimportant- and it may explain political polarization and other communication/education/persuasion phenomena. It's worth noting that this isn't a new idea- these ideas have been around in one form or another since at least the early 70s, with a variety of scales. These scales would generally ask you a series of questions, then place you on a set of two or more "cultural axes" that reflected the main division points in your country/political system. Think of it as the questions you answer at the beginning of an RPG that determine your alignment, you disgusting basement-dwellers  .What's unusual is that the Cultural Cognition Scale works really well.Cultural Cognition Scale You can think of the CultCog Scale as a much better-performing, scientifically validated version of one of those "Are you a Democrat or Republican? Click Here" web quizzes. People are asked a set of questions (12 in the short version, which is still hella reliable). These questions (in the short version) are actually two sets of 6, randomized. The first set maps your position on the "Hierarchicial-Egalitarian" scale, and the other set places you on "Individualist-Communitarian". The two axes form a map of the basic spectrum of US political discourse, which looks something like this, with Ron Paul in the upper left and Bernie Sanders on the lower right (very approximately):  You've seen this sort of thing before, I know. It was probably !!!This is a big thing we need to be cautious about with regard to CultCog- it provides really appealing narratives in basically any setting!!! But it's not always clear what it means, and its seductiveness means we should continue to be cautious about saying what it reflects! It can easily become a "method in search of a meaning", a sort of hammer we use on every political, ideological etc. nail- or screw, or infant. Please don't beat an infant to death with a hammer. Cultural cognition and Knowledge This is the really disturbing part of Cultural Cognition. Let's think of an issue where all the facts support one side's view- Anthropogenic Global Warming. Generally, we'd think that conservatives would believe it isn't a threat, and "right-minded, evidence-informed" liberals would believe it is. And that's generally what we'd see- on a scale of belief in global warming risk, conservatives would have a negative mean score, significantly different from a liberal mean positive score. But we'd also think there would be exceptions among the anti-science conservatives- some of them would be unusually knowledgeable about global warming, or better educated in general, and wouldn't look like other conservatives. So, if the Y axis is risk perception regarding global warming, and the X axis is subject-specific expertise, the hypothesis is that it would look like this:  See the rough > ? That's what developing an evidence-based consensus looks like- the sort of thing necessary to, say, get bipartisan support for a law dealing with global warming. This is what Kahan thought he'd find. He believed that if you objectively measured participant knowledge of a subject, cultural biases would disappear-this is the basis of public education campaigns on scientific subjects, and the cornerstone of trying to educate the ignorant about complex issues to get them on your side. Instead, he got this:  See how it forms a < ? That means that more subject information/knowledge actually polarizes people more. This is really bad. Like, really, really bad. It means that most of the current public efforts at education on controversial, complicated subjects, are actually making consensus impossible. It means public discourse and normal, fact-based ways of talking about culturally polarized issues (that thing you do on facebook, or at family gatherings, or on your Gurren Lagan fanfiction forum) worsen the situation, and that consensus can never emerge on these subjects through the rational deliberation of free minds- that thing that the US and most other democratic republics are built on. Infoposts, carefully designed memes and infographics touched by the hand of Ezra Klein himself are basically irrationality boosters, making it harder for people to agree. Let me be clear, because this is a mostly lefty forum- THIS EFFECTS LIBERALS TOO. You, you who are reading this post right now, are not a special snowflake- your cultural affiliations mean that you don't process information correctly, you irrational nutcase. On another issue, in another setting, with different issues and facts, you are the global warming denier. Kahan's run this sort of study on a number of issues, and if the issue is polarized to begin with, the biases are often the same, in either direction, with any number of controls or different questions asked. CultCog theory doesn't say who is right, it says that we're all biased- and that informing people about something that they view through the lens of their cultural identity will make them more polarized, not less. In the vaccine context, explaining how vaccines work to antivaxxers doesn't help at all- it gives them more ammunition, informational tools that they will weaponize to further rationalize and support their own prior identification with vaccine opposition. Dan Kahan  (yes, a little bit like Quentin Tarantino in this image)Although he's not an incredibly charismatic public speaker (see, e.g.), Kahan is a really clear and effective public speaker- and he's also a phenomenal writer. In both settings, he's clear, articulate, and very good at being cautious about what Cultural Cognition means. There's a reason he and his theory are now appearing in pretty much every article on scientific controversy and political polarization, especially inside the beltway. He's a pretty relentless and savvy promoter of his work, but he's also unusually well-regarded by other scientists because he's a) brilliant, b) a member of every prestigious scientific organization imaginable at a relatively young age, c) a nice person, and d) not been corrupted by publicity so far. This could change, but right now CultCog and Kahan are looking like a really good source of information about political polarization and information, and how to get past it. Caveats/weaknesses in Cultcog This is only a partial list- I'm not knowledgeable enough about the area to make this exhaustive. Hierarchy The Hierarchy part of the scale is wonky, and sometimes underrepresentative- no one in a sample gets a high Hierarchy score. Sometimes there's a normal distribution with plenty of high Hierarchy participants, but other times there are almost none, or the max reported value is below the end of the scale, which shouldn't happen with a large enough sampleI've taken to calling this the "Snidely Whiplash" effect- although the Hierarchy statements on the scale are still representative of one cultural affiliation, they're either phrased incorrectly or out of date- They come across as downright evil, and may not map onto the current Hierarchical cultural idea (there are reasons for this that I won't get into that would make the scale really complicated). To give one of the more mild examples, one of the Hierarchy items is something like "Society today has become too soft and feminine". Yeesh. But again, a significant number of people completely agree with this statement in many US samples. IMHO this is the biggest conventional problem with the scale as it now exists. Causation By necessity, a lot of CultCog studies are between subjects- you can't easily manipulate someone's cultural affiliations, or their other demographics, so it's hard to prove full causation and demonstrate what the underlying cognitive mechanisms are. Basically, just because there are significant effects that are predicted by the theory, doesn't mean that they are caused by what the theory says. Kahan and other have a bunch of working hypotheses they're looking into identity formation, status, freudian stuff- it gets complicated. We generally think it has to do with protecting prior affiliation or identity/ego from threats, but the details and the why aren't clear. Scope CultCog explicitly only works in the US, and may not work as well in some US subpopluations, such as native americans, that have a strongly separate set of cultural conflicts and identities. More generally, CultCog has less of an effect when the content of the issue isn't presented or "flagged" as being a partisan, culturally mediated issue for the individual. Kahan hopes that this means we can improve discourse by giving people information that's presented with friendly cultural affinity cues (think an old white conservative in a suit on Fox saying that income taxes should be raised for free market reasons), or bby presenting them without cultural cues. There are also some issues and cognitive mechanisms that are so powerful they overwhelm CultCog processing, and some issues that aren't polarized in the minds of the public, so CultCog doesn't have much of an effect. I'm presenting on one of these cases on Tuesday- it's actually an even more unpleasant scenario/effect than CultCog. Age Because CultCog is measuring cultural affiliations, it will need updating to continue to work. Much like it wouldn't work in a German audience, CultCog won't work with Americans in 20 years unless it's changed to account for issue shifts and language changes that have occurred over time. This may seem trivial, but it's killed other scales- and we need to make sure that it can account for the inevitable changes that will come with the glorious Ron Paul Revolution. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 20:52 on Apr 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:That means that more subject information/knowledge actually polarizes people more. At first, I thought this was a dumb idea, so I read up on it and did some research. Now I think it's a REALLY dumb idea.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:At first, I thought this was a dumb idea, so I read up on it and did some research. It's interesting you should mention that- information-seeking intention is one of the potential spoiler variables, but it's proving difficult to effectively measure. Information-seeking in general doesn't have any effect on the polarization effect.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:It's interesting you should mention that- information-seeking intention is one of the potential spoiler variables, but it's proving difficult to effectively measure. Information-seeking in general doesn't have any effect on the polarization effect. Don't look into it too hard, I'm just giving you a hard time 
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Dan Kahan and Cultural Cognition Effortpost Thanks! That's really fascinating, and something I'll keep an eye on to see how the research develops.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 01:43
|
|
Mercury_Storm posted:♪ Vaccines Can't Melt Steel Beams ♪ this is the one true conspiracy theory anthem https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAkWNxhBWjs
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 01:49
|
|
|
What relevance does the cog chart stuff have to do with antivax in general or this thread in particular? It doesn't seem to bring anything new to the table at all. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 16:13 on Apr 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
No more exemptions for Christian Scientists in Australia to allow them to continue receiving childcare benefits. Nor are they going to allow any other religious exemptions. I anticipate hilarious backlash. e:goddamn phone posting leads to loving up links. eNeMeE fucked around with this message at 16:18 on Apr 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:What relevance does the cog chart stuff have to do with antivax in general or this thread in particular? Short version is it's the reason why fact-laden or normal, intuitive persuasion/argumentation is actually really counterproductive when dealing with antivaxxers. More generally, it represents the current hot consensus in science communication, and should inform our approach to conversations with antivaxxers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
eNeMeE posted:No more exemptions for Christian Scientists in Australia to allow them to continue receiving childcare benefits. Nor are they going to allow any other religious exemptions. We have had whooping cough outbreaks in three states. poo poo, in the west they had a fire station shut down by an outbreak caused by non vaxed kids. I'm ok with cutting benefits to antivaxers to force them to vaccinate if it stops my two kids dying of something preventable. I'm really glad our day care treats children with no vaccinations the same as loaded firearms. Not allowed on site for any reason at any time. Spacman fucked around with this message at 16:50 on Apr 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
I'm guessing anti-vaxxers address society's collective memory of polio and other outbreaks from decades ago by adopting the "Shut up, Mom!" position. At least that's what I imagine happens when grandparents tell their anti-vaxxer kids to vaccinate their grandkids.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:I'm guessing anti-vaxxers address society's collective memory of polio and other outbreaks from decades ago by adopting the "Shut up, Mom!" position. I'd guess that the usual diversion at that point is to say that modern Big Pharma is different and evil compared with how things operated back then.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
Spacman posted:We have had whooping cough outbreaks in three states. poo poo, in the west they had a fire station shut down by an outbreak caused by non vaxed kids. I'm ok with cutting benefits to antivaxers to force them to vaccinate if it stops my two kids dying of something preventable. Most states solved the problem by eliminating everything but the medical exemption/at least requiring a exemption from doctor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:I'm guessing anti-vaxxers address society's collective memory of polio and other outbreaks from decades ago by adopting the "Shut up, Mom!" position. When I've engaged with antivaxxers they usually fall back to a few different unique and bizarre positions. 1) Polio was on the decline because the population was starting to develop natural immunity, within a few years there wasn't going to be anymore poliovirus 2) Polio was on the decline due to improved sanitation, within a few years there wasn't going to be anymore poliovirus 3) Polio was never a big deal in the first place (this response one is much more rare) They then couple one of those positions this with any of: 1) Big pharma noticed polio was on the decline and pushed an ineffective vaccine into the market in order to make money 2) Big pharma noticed polio was on the decline and pushed <mind control serum, HIV injections, or some other insane conspiracy theorist thing> 3) Big pharma happened to develop an effective vaccine just as polio was on the decline anyway, so while it's true that the vaccine can work it's still better to rely on natural immunity for <reasons>
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Short version is it's the reason why fact-laden or normal, intuitive persuasion/argumentation is actually really counterproductive when dealing with antivaxxers. More generally, it represents the current hot consensus in science communication, and should inform our approach to conversations with antivaxxers. You seem to be casting it as a research team with a flawed and less-than-meaningful but arguably more accurate than its competitors taxonomic system. Nothing in your post discussed "reasons" why fact-laden argumentation is counterproductive, just evidence that it was (which we already know), unless I missed something both in the initial and reread? We've already spent like a dozen pages in this thread talking about the reasons why much argumentation is counterproductive with antivaxxers including research about what those reasons were and ways to work around it. You didn't... actually include any in your post, so I was wondering if they had any particularly relevant findings, maybe even insofar as effective alternative strategies for changing people's positions about the topic. You seem to have read quite a bit about it, maybe they have discovered something useful, if so you should share. And yes, I'm reading the site now, but it will take me a while probably. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Apr 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
I've seen anti-vaxxers argue that FDR had scurvy. Yep.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
I appreciate that you may not be used to what cautious, caveat-laden scientific writing looks like- that post is what it looks like. I mentioned everything that could remotely look like a weakness in the theory to demonstrate that there aren't many weaknesses in the theory. Discussions you're referring to from earlier in the thread mostly came from this line of research, or from its immediate predecessors- or aren't as well-supported or respected scientifically. Kahan's work is the 800-pond gorilla in science communication. His research is as strong as or stronger than any other line of social science research in this area or any related area. I was asked to post about his research because I'm presenting it in DC in two days at a national policy conference- one of two scientific presentations in the whole thing. It's not a vaccine conference, and I'm not a vaccine expert. If you'd like to look at the team's work with vaccination specifically, start here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:When I've engaged with antivaxxers they usually fall back to a few different unique and bizarre positions. At which point you surely point out that Jonas Salk refused to patent the vaccine, turning down what is now approximated at $7bn, because he thought that helping humanity was more important than him getting rich. Seriously, gently caress anyone who would say a word against Salk.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Short version is it's the reason why fact-laden or normal, intuitive persuasion/argumentation is actually really counterproductive when dealing with antivaxxers. More generally, it represents the current hot consensus in science communication, and should inform our approach to conversations with antivaxxers. I'm phone posting so I haven't had a chance to read your later link, but is intuitive persuasion/argumentation ineffective due to in-group/out-group signalling or something else? On the one hand, I certainly see anti-vaxxers try a cargo cult version of "showing the evidence", but plenty are certainly quick to frame arguments in completely different terms where hard evidence becomes absolutely meaningless.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:I'm phone posting so I haven't had a chance to read your later link, but is intuitive persuasion/argumentation ineffective due to in-group/out-group signalling or something else? I'm also phone posting so I'm not sure if it's the same theory but basically anti-vaxers filter out information messages that aren't congruent with their current values and beliefs, which is why purely information based persuasive messages are ineffective. And as a point to make, it's extremely hard to change values and beliefs in a person.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
Finally some sanity in Ontario http://www.thestar.com/life/health_wellness/2015/04/18/judge-orders-10-year-old-girl-be-vaccinated-for-measles-against-moms-wishes.html "Judge orders 10-year-old girl be vaccinated for measles against mom’s wishes" "Brantford Superior Court Justice R. John Harper didn’t agree with any of the mother's arguments against the vaccine, including that there are “unmistakable links” between vaccines and severe reactions." "By ruling that vaccination is in the best interests of the child, Harper was siding with the girl’s father, who is separated from the mother and shares joint custody, as well as with the overwhelming scientific evidence that has proven the effectiveness and extremely low risk of the measles vaccine."
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:I'm phone posting so I haven't had a chance to read your later link, but is intuitive persuasion/argumentation ineffective due to in-group/out-group signalling or something else? Which is why the stick method is the only thing that makes sense. No vaccination, then no public school, state university or other government services until it gets corrected. Only medical exemptions should be accepted as a valid reason to avoid vaccination.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:I'm phone posting so I haven't had a chance to read your later link, but is intuitive persuasion/argumentation ineffective due to in-group/out-group signalling or something else? Recoome posted:I'm also phone posting so I'm not sure if it's the same theory but basically anti-vaxers filter out information messages that aren't congruent with their current values and beliefs, which is why purely information based persuasive messages are ineffective. These are related, older theories mostly coming out of the attitude change theory literature. It's accurate about attitude change generally, but one weakness of most of those theories is they provide very little specific guidance on what to do when actually designing persuasive messages or campaigns- and even less guidance on an unusual target population like vaccine deniers. (Many of those theories are also really unscientific, circular, unfalsifiable, etc- a product of being social sciences research done in the 60s-70s- here I'm thinking of elaboration likelihood model and the work of Shelly Chaiken, which was great in its time but not all that helpful now except as a foundation for conceptualizing "attitudes". We learned it in class, mostly to understand why it's not popular anymore). It's not that these theories or explanations are necessarily wrong, it's just that they're not very well-defined or informative. Saying that there's an identity or affiliation defense mechanism involved in reactance/counterarguing and persuasive messages doesn't tell you very much about how to change those messages to be more effective- especially if you're making a mass media message and can't tailor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:It probably applies to the naturalist movement on a general level. The modern urban and suburban classes are so divorced from what is actual nature that it has taken on a new and mythical meaning to them. I agree. We need something like adult petting farms for anybody who thinks that cows, pigs, and chickens are really cute in some sort of natural state before industrial ranches showed up. Anybody who's spent any time around a farm knows that they aren't anything like cute cartoon animals. They're quite gross and unpleasant up close. thrakkorzog fucked around with this message at 12:06 on Apr 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 11:53
|
|
|
quote:Its foolish to believe [homeopathic] water will help do anything but hydrate you, far better to use proven items like rhino horn, bear bile and tiger bone. Chinese medicine has a far longer history o f effectiveness. Source
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 14:12
|
|
|
Homeopathy is the belief that if you dilute a beer in the Hudson river, you will cure new-Yorkers of alcoholism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 14:28
|
|
|
Dalael posted:Homeopathy is the belief that if you dilute a beer in the Hudson river, you will cure new-Yorkers of alcoholism. How about a nice homeopathic lager? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
The water on Earth has so much memory in it by now, it's all crazy. This crazy old water is giving our kids the 'tism. I propose creating water that has had its memory wiped, Amnesia Water, pure water, to purify your child's brains.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 15:57
|
|
|
Just create a homeopathic dillution of homeopathic autism water to cure them of autism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
Excuse me, but based on a proper understanding of homeopathic practices, the answer is clearly a dilution of autistic children.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Excuse me, but based on a proper understanding of homeopathic practices, the answer is clearly a dilution of autistic children. I think you're mistaken, you need to give them a small dilution of the thing that caused the autism. Diluted vaccines!
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
Dalael posted:Homeopathy is the belief that if you dilute a beer in the Hudson river, you will cure new-Yorkers of alcoholism. Homeopathy is the belief that they threw Bin Laden's body in the sea to cure terrorism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 14:30 |
|
|
Dr. Stab posted:Just create a homeopathic dillution of homeopathic autism water to cure them of autism. "Or, failing that, pump bleach up their rear end." -- A thing that people actually said and then did That still sickens me. CPS really should be more powerful to prevent things like that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 19:03
|
|