Some people trust authority, some people don't, and by having both you ensure that you will take a certain amount of action in uncertainty, but not too much.
-
-
Replying to @cmuratori @sohakes and
It's "humanity operating well as a collective decision system", even though everyone involved thinks everyone else is an idiot. And to be fair, everyone _is_ an idiot. But that doesn't change the outcome, which will be that humanity will survive well _regardless_ of the input.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @TylerGlaiel and
Do you have a scientific mindset for everything? I doubt it, you would be paralyzed. We kinda trust things will work, and sometimes we are wrong and bad things happen and the heterodox view was right. But I also find it worrisome when the heterodox view is so large and impactful.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sohakes @cmuratori and
Being pro or against vaccines is a big deal with big consequences. Most people who studied these things tell they are safe. Why such a big fraction of people don't trust them? Is there any merit to their claims? If not much, isn't it bad for such an important thing?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sohakes @TylerGlaiel and
It's just a measure of institutional trust, which is understandably at low levels. I'm not sure it really goes any further than that for most people. But calling people names when they don't agree with a systemic pronouncement is extremely unproductive regardless of your view.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @cmuratori
I agree it's institutional trust. I just wanted to understand if there is any validity to antivax given your challenge, I thought you had good criticism. But then imo your point was we need to understand to defend it, and I also disagree (proof of burden to antivaxers imo).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @sohakes
Personally I think that you want vaccine hesitancy in the general case because people tend to overstate the degree to which you know the outcome of mass vaccination to an emergent disease. That has nothing to do with the _rationale_ of the people, though.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @cmuratori @sohakes
In other words, I think you typically don't want to vaccinate 100% of your population in the first year of an emergent disease with a brand new vaccine. So the _outcome_ of splitting into vaccinated and non-vaccinated groups, especially if they can be geo-isolated, is good.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @sohakes
The _reasons_ people give for _either_ choice, however, seem very suspect to me and I suspect they are mostly post-hoc explanations, not the real reasons why people did or didn't do something.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
This is actually true of most decisions, I think - most of the time people didn't actually start with an open mind and then do something on the weight of the evidence. Usually they picked one or another thing, and then later they say something about why, but it is not causal.
-
-
Replying to @cmuratori @sohakes
So while some people who refuse to be vaccinated _may_ have a sound, logical case for doing so, I wouldn't imagine _most_ do not. But the _same_ is true for those who choose _to_ be vaccinate - some actually took the time to reason through it, but most did not.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @cmuratori
I mean... Yeah. We trust or instincts, and we are built to have decent instincts. That's not bad on itself, but I think people should confront these in face of conflicting evidence, and as a society understand people's behavior. In this case, probably how to increase trust.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.