New Law in California

[Umbran]

...

(thunder, ominous music)

[video=youtube;8lXdyD2Yzls]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lXdyD2Yzls[/video]

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

I know of a rabbi who convinced the white supremacist who was victimizing him to abandon his hate. It took conversations over the course of many months- usually initiated by the victimizer who was calling to harass the rabbi and his family. That neo-nazi eventually married a Hispanic woman, and when he fell seriously ill, he even lived with the rabbi and his family

IOW, while you may not think much of the diplomatic approach, it actually can work. And statistics show it is general a more effective tactic than confrontation.

Confrontation has its place. But it is usually best as a tool of penultimate or last resort, not as a standard tactic.

Hmmm... not sure I was clear enough when I asked my question. So I'll just be more direct, what is the target behavior you are looking to change? Or are you actually trying to change a behavior? Do you believe that discussing facts with anti-vaccers would be effectives? Do you believe that would be the most effective method?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

So I'll just be more direct, what is the target behavior you are looking to change? Or are you actually trying to change a behavior?

Obviously, trying to get them to change their view on vaccines, and thus, their objections to the programs.

Do you believe that discussing facts with anti-vaccers would be effectives?

With all of them? No. But some will change. There are former members of the movement who have written about their experiences.

The (non-unique) site listed below not only has postings from people who have always tried to debunk the anti-vaccine movement, but also people who were once members of it.
http://www.voicesforvaccines.org

Do you believe that would be the most effective method?

Well, odds are good that a dialog will be more effective than calling them names. People tend to shut down when insulted.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Obviously, trying to get them to change their view on vaccines, and thus, their objections to the programs.

I assume that part of ehat you'd want is that aside from changing their views, you'd want them to act upon those changed views, right? I mean, it's great they are no longer opposed to vaccines, but it'd be even better if they went out and got their kids vaccinated if they already weren't right?

With all of them? No. But some will change. There are former members of the movement who have written about their experiences.

The (non-unique) site listed below not only has postings from people who have always tried to debunk the anti-vaccine movement, but also people who were once members of it.
http://www.voicesforvaccines.org

Well, odds are good that a dialog will be more effective than calling them names. People tend to shut down when insulted.

Sure, that may be true... or not. I mean, if giving people facts worked to change their minds on vaccines, there would be far less of these anti-vaccers. But in any case, do you believe discussion, civil or not, is the most effective way to change the behavior you'd like to change?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I assume that part of ehat you'd want is that aside from changing their views, you'd want them to act upon those changed views, right? I mean, it's great they are no longer opposed to vaccines, but it'd be even better if they went out and got their kids vaccinated if they already weren't right?

Clearly. The point (and only meaningful evidence) of them changing their views is to have them act in accord with the new viewpoint.

Sure, that may be true... or not. I mean, if giving people facts worked to change their minds on vaccines, there would be far less of these anti-vaccers. But in any case, do you believe discussion, civil or not, is the most effective way to change the behavior you'd like to change?

I don't think merely giving/showing people facts is going to change most minds- you have to educate them, which is a more active process.

As for "far less"...well, we have no way of knowing how many have been persuaded to change their views, just that some have. Some have cited looking at the research data and/or mass of news articles debunking the movement on their own. Some have cited constructive engagement by people they trust.

AFAIK, NONE have said that they were tired of having their intelligence insulted and they changed their views in order to conform and not be called stupid.

Discussion may not be the most effective means of changing views, but it is more effective than browbeating and insults.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Clearly. The point (and only meaningful evidence) of them changing their views is to have them act in accord with the new viewpoint.

I don't think merely giving/showing people facts is going to change most minds- you have to educate them, which is a more active process.

As for "far less"...well, we have no way of knowing how many have been persuaded to change their views, just that some have. Some have cited looking at the research data and/or mass of news articles debunking the movement on their own. Some have cited constructive engagement by people they trust.

So what you are looking at are really two different behaviors. What someone says and what they do are two different things, which may require two different approaches. And if the end result we are looking for is to have them act in a certain way, we may not need to concern ourselves with what they say.

AFAIK, NONE have said that they were tired of having their intelligence insulted and they changed their views in order to conform and not be called stupid.

Discussion may not be the most effective means of changing views, but it is more effective than browbeating and insults.

that really depends. Aversive stimuli are quite effective, and efficient, at changing behavior. The question is whether the stimuli is actually aversive and if it's aversive enough. That all depends on the individual coming into contact with said aversive stimuli.

 

[Umbran]

And if the end result we are looking for is to have them act in a certain way, we may not need to concern ourselves with what they say.

We need them to stop fighting against vaccination, both in word and deed. We don't need to turn everyone into a pro-vax activist, but continued misinformation is a major problem.

Aversive stimuli are quite effective, and efficient, at changing behavior.

Effective... but you don't get to direct *how* it will change. This is why animal trainers use very little negative-reinforcement training these days.

In this case, it is pretty well documented that confrontation and aggressive debunking tends to end with people doubling-down on what they already believe. The change is to become even more vehement for their cause.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

We need them to stop fighting against vaccination, both in word and deed. We don't need to turn everyone into a pro-vax activist, but continued misinformation is a major problem.

Correct, we don't need them to become pro-vaccine activist. We just need them to get Vaccines. Again, two different behaviors. Our target behavior should be what they do, not what they say.

Effective... but you don't get to direct *how* it will change. This is why animal trainers use very little negative-reinforcement training these days.

Actually, it's more about the ethics of using aversive stimuli. You can blame Florida for that one too. I may stay a thread about it when I get home and have access to some of the links that give you some good information about how Florida messes up and the rest of the country pays for it.
Also, yes, you can direct how the behavior changes if you know what you're doing.

In this case, it is pretty well documented that confrontation and aggressive debunking tends to end with people doubling-down on what they already believe. The change is to become even more vehement for their cause.

actually, that just tells me that you're either targeting the wing behavior, using a stimulus that isn't aversive to your subject, or a stimulus that isn't aversive enough.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Our target behavior should be what they do, not what they say.

We may not, as Umbran said, need to turn them into pro-vaccine activists, but we still need to target what they say- as long as they spread anti-vaccine rhetoric, the message will still find fertile ground in which to flourish and grow like a weed.

actually, that just tells me that you're either targeting the wing behavior, using a stimulus that isn't aversive to your subject, or a stimulus that isn't aversive enough

Fair enough. Let's amend then- insulting their intellect is observed to cause their views & behaviors to trend in the opposite of intended modification, ergo, is not aversive to them or not aversive enough to them to achieve the desired result.

Comparatively, there is documentation of the efficacy of education in this area from the words & actions of anti-vaccine activists & believers themselves.

The carrot is working better than the stick.

 

[Umbran]

Fair enough. Let's amend then- insulting their intellect is observed to cause their views & behaviors to trend in the opposite of intended modification, ergo, is not aversive to them or not aversive enough to them to achieve the desired result.

Oh, it is aversive. But, it isn't enough to be aversive. They have to connect the negative stimulus with the thing you want them to avoid.

If your dog poops in the house, you come home, start shouting and roughtly rubbing his nose in it, do you think he connects 'pooping in the house" with the negative stimulus? Not likely. It may have been hours since he did that - he doesn't see the cause and effect. He instead experiences the negative stimulus of your displeasure and connects with ... something. Probably the source of the negative stimulus, which is *you*.

In the anti-vax case, there's a clear thing to feel aversion to: pro-vaxers! Those people are jerks! Insulting our intelligence! Who do they think they are, anyway!?! I'm not going to listen to a jerk like that!

Positive influences are far more tractable, predictable, and sustainable than negative ones. Occasionally, one may need to break out the stick, but even then, only in conjuction with a carrot. Negative stimulii alone are not a good training method.