New Law in California

[bone_naga]

I'm ok with ridicule in cases like this. It's not to try to convert the anti-vaxxers. Yes, I realize that with a slow and patient indirect approach, over the course of many moons you may finally change that one person's mind. Meanwhile, a hundred other people all bought into that fearmongering nonsense.

Ridicule the hell out of them and ostracize them until no sane person wants to be associated with that group. You won't win any converts that way, but herd mentality will probably help keep more people from jumping on the crazy train. Although I should probably defer to our resident head guy on how effective that is.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

I'm ok with ridicule in cases like this. It's not to try to convert the anti-vaxxers. Yes, I realize that with a slow and patient indirect approach, over the course of many moons you may finally change that one person's mind. Meanwhile, a hundred other people all bought into that fearmongering nonsense.

Ridicule the hell out of them and ostracize them until no sane person wants to be associated with that group. You won't win any converts that way, but herd mentality will probably help keep more people from jumping on the crazy train. Although I should probably defer to our resident head guy on how effective that is.

I like the way you think.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

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.

There is a good chance that if you get them to vaccinate, they will stop the anti-vaccines rhetoric. You don't need them to become pro-vaccine fanatics, you just need them to shut the hell up and vaccinate.

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.

Again, that depends what behavior you're targeting and what change you'd like to see in that behavior. If you are trying to increase a behavior, say vaccinating, then yes, there is a good probability that presenting "the carrot" may work better. If you are trying to decrease a behavior, say promoting anti-vaccine propaganda, presenting "the carrot" is not going to help.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Oh, it is aversive.

Possibly. Possibly not. Hell, there are people that pay good money to be ridiculed. Not everyone finds the same things aversive, just as not everyone finds the same things enjoyable.

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.

I'm pretty sure you and I use "positive" and "negative" in regards to behavior change differently. But just to be sure, what do you mean by positive and negative?

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.

We refer to that as multiple schedules.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

There is a good chance that if you get them to vaccinate, they will stop the anti-vaccines rhetoric. You don't need them to become pro-vaccine fanatics, you just need them to shut the hell up and vaccinate.

I'm not saying that laws to force them to vaccinate will not be effective or overturned in whole or in part by a lawsuit.

I am saying that- regardless of the legal envitpronment- insulting their intelligence is not helping.

And again, like Umbran, I am not claiming they need to become pro-vaccine advocates, though that would be nice. Merely getting each to cease advocacy of anti-vaccination positions would be enough.

Again, that depends what behavior you're targeting and what change you'd like to see in that behavior. If you are trying to increase a behavior, say vaccinating, then yes, there is a good probability that presenting "the carrot" may work better. If you are trying to decrease a behavior, say promoting anti-vaccine propaganda, presenting "the carrot" is not going to help.

Again, we're not aiming for the anti-vaxxers to do a rhetorical 180, just to stop them from espousing the debunked position.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

I'm not saying that laws to force them to vaccinate will not be effective or overturned in whole or in part by a lawsuit.

I am saying that- regardless of the legal envitpronment- insulting their intelligence is not helping.

Well, actually, you don't know that. It may or may not get people to change. There really are no statistics to show if it is changing behavior.

And again, like Umbran, I am not claiming they need to become pro-vaccine advocates, though that would be nice. Merely getting each to cease advocacy of anti-vaccination positions would be enough.

Again, we're not aiming for the anti-vaxxers to do a rhetorical 180, just to stop them from espousing the debunked position.

Great, so we are all in agreement. Decreasing anti-vaccers espousing their debunked position is not the same as increasing pro-vaccine speech. You do realize we are saying the same thing, right? I'm just pointing out that to decrease a behavior presenting "the carrot" is not the most effective thing. That would be a good option if we are trying to increase a particular behavior, such as actually getting vaccines.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Well, actually, you don't know that. It may or may not get people to change. There really are no statistics to show if it is changing behavior.

We don't have statistics, but we DO have the testimony of the people who have changed their minds.

Great, so we are all in agreement. Decreasing anti-vaccers espousing their debunked position is not the same as increasing pro-vaccine speech. You do realize we are saying the same thing, right?

The only reason we kept repeating ourselves is that you didn't seem to understand us.

I'm just pointing out that to decrease a behavior presenting "the carrot" is not the most effective thing. That would be a good option if we are trying to increase a particular behavior, such as actually getting vaccines.

Never claimed that it was the most effective, just more effective than being confrontational, based on the testimony of those who have left the movement.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

We don't have statistics, but we DO have the testimony of the people who have changed their minds.

Anecdotal evidence is still anecdotal. Doesn't rally prove anything.

The only reason we kept repeating ourselves is that you didn't seem to understand us.

[sblock=I see, it's...]

[/sblock]

Never claimed that it was the most effective, just more effective than being confrontational, based on the testimony of those who have left the movement.

To decrease a behavior? No, that's incorrect. If you want to decrease a behavior, presenting the carrot would be positive reinforcement, assuming "the carrot" is a preferred stimulus. If your goal is to increase a behavior, reinforcement is the way to go. If you are looking to decrease a behavior, you wouldn't want to use reinforcement.
I think the real problem is that you're not able to clearly identify the behavior(s) you are targeting.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I think the real problem is that you're not able to clearly identify the behavior(s) you are targeting.

Dude- I've IDed it several times in this thread!

1) getting the kids (and others) vaccinated and

2) cessation of espousing an anti-vaxxing position

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Dude- I've IDed it several times in this thread!

1) getting the kids (and others) vaccinated and

2) cessation of espousing an anti-vaxxing position

Sure, dude. Which behavior was increased, and which behavior was decreased?