Vaccination & epidemic

[DanaC]

I didn't say you were being emotional. I am saying this is likely to be a subject which the other person will not approach without emotion.

[tw]

Originally Posted by DanaC

I didn't say you were being emotional. I am saying this is likely to be a subject which the other person will not approach without emotion.

Which is really my point, is it not? But then many people confuse their emotional decisions with a belief that it is based in facts. Another point previously made - if a decision was not based in perspective (the numbers), then one has a benchmark to identify their mistake.

One cannot use emotion to make that vaccine decision. Such decisions require thinking from the adult brain because the adult has a responsibility to his kid and to all other kids.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by tw

Which is really my point, is it not? But then many people confuse their emotional decisions with a belief that it is based in facts. Another point previously made - if a decision was not based in perspective (the numbers), then one has a benchmark to identify their mistake.

One cannot use emotion to make that vaccine decision. Such decisions require thinking from the adult brain because the adult has a responsibility to his kid and to all other kids.

You misunderstand me. I wasn't saying Jim and Jinx approached the decision emotionally. It's this thread and this conversation which will always provoke emotion. Because this is about questioning and casting judgement on someone's parenting.

[tw]

Originally Posted by DanaC

You misunderstand me. I wasn't saying Jim and Jinx approached the decision emotionally. It's this thread and this conversation which will always provoke emotion.

You may think so. But read what I posted. I never even implied that. And am rather confused how one would reach that conclusion without adding, well, its explained below.

If I was criticizing lumberjim's and jinx's parenting skills, then you would have read multiple reasons why I reached that conclusion. At this point you should know I routinely provide multiple reasons for a conclusion. This post will be a classic example.

A first post discussed conclusions about vaccines and surge protectors. What do both have in common with parenting skills? Nothing. That was a clue that you were reading what was not posted.

Many (probably most) only read what they expect to read. A conclusion based in motivated reasoning. How do surge protectors define bad parenting skills?

The point was bluntly about how people make conclusions. As discussed previously. This topic goes right back to how children think verses how adults think when using a pre-frontal cortex. No way around that reality. Children and adults who are thinking like children entertain a "motivated reasoning" process. Adults eventually discover that something must be read at least three times to understand it - especially when a concept is new. Otherwise motivated reasoning takes hold.

If you understood it with a first reading, then it said only what you already knew it would say. And probably overlooked the most important part (numbers).

At this point the emotional, using motivational reasoning, will see these words but not read what is posted. Since I have already touched on a reality that angers, then many will not reread to understand the actual topic in that first post.

We know numbers prove benefits of infant vaccines far outweigh the risks. Facts and updated numbers from research repeatedly say so (including recent numbers that expose a decreasing effectiveness in one vaccine). Why do so many know otherwise? "Motivated reasoning" partially explains it.

Dr Kahan of Yale discusses, for example, how conservatives tend to value individualism, hierarchical organization, and a belief in ensuring their own prosperity. Therefore a "sacrifice of one for the many" (what should be a familiar quote) is contrary to many conservative beliefs. As a result, a CFL light bulb that is environmentally friendly creates a very negative response from this group. Their motivated reasoning explains why CFL bulbs sell least to most conservative thinkers. Even though its advantages over an incandescent bulb and numerous and significant.

Michael Shermer in an October issue of Scientific American further demonstrates the problem by using himself as an example. Citing his bias for unrestricted gun access. Opinions that were challenged by extensive research into guns, homicides, and accidental shootings eventually changed his motivated beliefs. He said

I find that, too often, my beliefs trump scientific facts. This is called motivated reasoning, in which our brains reason our way to supporting what we know to be true.

Shermer then discusses a trend he noted at the 2013 FreedomFest in Las Vegas.

but this year I was so discouraged by the rampant denial of science that I wanted to turn in my libertarian membership card. ... all of us are subject to the psychological forces at play when it comes to choosing between facts and beliefs when they do not mesh. In the long run, it is better to understand the way the world really is rather than how we would like it to be.

A commentary in Machine Design, notes (unfortunately) that scientific facts today must be 'tailored' to reader biases.

Strangely enough, that approach sounds a bit like something else that's exacerbated antiscience attitudes - namely, increasingly subjective media outlets designed to engage target audiences. That's where most people get the bulk of their science-related information right now.

Well, I did not do that, did I? I simply posted facts bluntly as facts without any concern for what was completely irrelevant here - the reader’s emotional biases. I expect you to know the minute you have assumed insult or cheapshot, then you know you have not grasped the point. And probably overlooked a perspective (the numbers). Again, most readers never see written numbers (the perspective) until after multiple rereads.

So, have you followed rather complex concepts posted here? If you did not read this at least three times, then you did not. A second benchmark point to add to one about rejecting claims that are only subjective; not quantitative. If your conclusions are not tempered by perspective (the numbers), then what was read may be a victim of motivated reasoning.

That first post says nothing critical about anyone. It is completely about how people see vaccines as dangerous when no quantitative research (even 30 years ago - 1982) said that. And about people who do same with surge protectors (ie assume it is high tech; therefore must do protection).

To suspect infant vaccines are more dangerous than beneficial is a perfect example of motivated reasoning. Defining one as easily manipulated (brainwashed) as the stripper and actress Jenny McCarthy. No quantitative conclusion even ten years ago could justify subjectively inspired fears. And yet that is what so many of us use for knowledge. Saddam's WMDs were another perfect example. The inability of TEPCO top management to make a decision to save three nuclear reactors from meltdown is another perfect example. Another is management that all but murdered seven Challenger astronauts. How many instead assumed these were accidents? At best, one could only conclude these were classic examples of brain freeze.

A conclusion based in emotions is not what the pre-frontal cortex does. But is a characteristic of how children think. When incapable of grasping something that contradicts beliefs, many have a brain freeze; simply resort to the brain mostly used by children. Many simply and foolishly decide based upon what makes them comfortable. People can die because of it.

Moving on. Did you ignore a statement about computer adjacent protectors even creating house fires? Why did that not get most of your attention? Were you reading for facts? Or reading only to be emotional or stay in your comfort zone? I intentionally included that ‘bait’ to see who would grasp for facts. How many instead remained in a 'feel good' mode; used motivated reasoning to even ignore how fires get created?

I never criticized anyone's parenting skills. I noted how people entertain their emotions rather than grasp facts and numbers. This fear of vaccines has long been a perfect example.

I simply demonstrated how lumberjim, et al were easily manipulated by Jenny McCarthy, et al type myths. Does not matter when they did the research. It was still a conclusion from reasoning also demonstrated by Jenny McCarthy. Never a criticism of lumberjim or jinx. And yet lumberjim did exactly what so many do when motivated reasoning is exposed. A majority get angry rather than learn from their mistakes. A majority get angry rather than do what Michael Shermer does (professionally).