or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccination Forum Guidelines Reminder and Discussion
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Vaccination Forum Guidelines Reminder and Discussion - Page 2

post #21 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Saying someone doesn't understand science or statistics as a general statement is an ad hominem attack.
 
Saying "no, you misunderstood that science/that statistic, it means this" is a different thing.

I agree with the first.

 

I think one needs to be careful with the second.  Most of the time, people do not misunderstand the statistic or science - they just disagree with each other, or have a different focus on what is important.  I think a lot of people think that "if they just understood what I was trying to say/just understood the stats and science, they would agree with what I am saying."  That is not the case.  

 

I am often in awe of  the intelligence and articulation displayed by both the pro and non (and everything in between) vaxxers in this community - I am pretty darn sure most of them have the understanding of science and statistics necessary to make a decision.

 

Moreover, there is no non-inflammatory way to say "you misunderstand that statistic."  Most people would respond to such a statement with defensiveness.  Better, I think, to explain your reasoning with "I" statements rather than   assumptive "no, you misunderstand……."  statements. 


Edited by purslaine - 5/22/12 at 9:59am
post #22 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbbyGrant View Post


 Sure in that way.  But if someone is outlining what amounts to a conspiracy, I don't see the problem calling it just that.

Can you give an example (without finger pointing orngtongue.gif).  

post #23 of 333
I work with statistics and explain them to people every day. I have advanced training in statistics. Trust me, most people do not understand statistics or probability and therefore risk very well at all. I don't see a problem with pointing out a misunderstanding when there clearly is one. I agree that saying someone doesn't understand when they really just disagree is patronizing and annoying.

There is some burden here in not being offensive when we speak but also not being overly ready to take offense and give each other some benefit of the doubt.
post #24 of 333
In general a good rule of thumb is to keep statements about ideas or issues being discussed and not about the people discussing them.
post #25 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post


There is some burden here in not being offensive when we speak but also not being overly ready to take offense and give each other some benefit of the doubt.

I was going to edit my previous post to add just this thing!

 

I would like to hear what others from both camps have to say about statements such as "no, you misunderstand the science"

 

Am I being sensitive…or is a statement like this somewhat inflammatory?

post #26 of 333

I think it is difficult because very often some "science" exists on both sides of whatever point is being argued. (peer reviewed/govt/official site)

 

Both sides can understand perfecting well what they are presenting, dislike/dismiss the others' info, and continue to disagree.

post #27 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbbyGrant View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

 

Equating questioning vaccines with being a conspiracy theorist is often an attempt to discredit a person or group.  


 Sure in that way.  But if someone is outlining what amounts to a conspiracy, I don't see the problem calling it just that.

 

Yeah, I don't think its mostly the non-vaxers that get accused of being conspiracy theorists. I think its mostly "Big Pharma is a conspiracy! They want us to be sick so that they profit off our continued use of meds!!"

post #28 of 333
Right, we shouldn't assume disagreement means misunderstanding, but if someone says, for example, that dtap is dangerous to have with a new baby in the house because of shedding, that is a misunderstanding and there's no reason not to correct it.
post #29 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by slmommy View Post

I think it is difficult because very often some "science" exists on both sides of whatever point is being argued. (peer reviewed/govt/official site)

 

Both sides can understand perfecting well what they are presenting, dislike/dismiss the others' info, and continue to disagree.

 

But the point is to put all the information out there - so that those new to the forum can read for themselves and make their own decisions. I don't think its to convince non-vaxers that they are "wrong" or to convince vaxers that they are "wrong".

post #30 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama View Post

 

Yeah, I don't think its mostly the non-vaxers that get accused of being conspiracy theorists. I think its mostly "Big Pharma is a conspiracy! They want us to be sick so that they profit off our continued use of meds!!"

Got it.

 

I genuinely did not know what you were talking about when you brought up conspiracy theorists in your first post.

 

The only way I have noticed it being used is against non-vaxxers as a "you question vaccine and Big pharm" so therefore you are a conspiracy theorist! 

 

I suspect most pro-vax people look with a more critical eye at non-vax posts, and vice versa.  It is hard to escape.  

post #31 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama View Post

 

Yeah, I don't think its mostly the non-vaxers that get accused of being conspiracy theorists. I think its mostly "Big Pharma is a conspiracy! They want us to be sick so that they profit off our continued use of meds!!"

Got it.

 

I genuinely did not know what you were talking about when you brought up conspiracy theorists in your first post.

 

The only way I have noticed it being used is against non-vaxxers as a "you question vaccine and Big pharm" so therefore you are a conspiracy theorist! 

 

I suspect most pro-vax people look with a more critical eye at non-vax posts, and vice versa.  It is hard to escape.  

 

I haven't seen that recently. But what I was talking about with the conspiracy, is that even when someone doesn't use the word "conspiracy" but say something like, "Well, we know that vaccines can cause (insert chronic conditions here), so Big Pharma wants to make sure everyone is vaxed because then they ensure their profits through the use of the drugs to treat (insert chronic conditions here)" - thats describing a conspiracy theory. Anyone who posts that is saying that BigPharma is a big huge conspiracy. Which is of course something some people consider debatable, and I personally don't believe in gigantic conspiracies that involve millions of people (the Dr's, nurses, government, everyone in any medical capacity would have to be involved - which is just not believable). But its insulting to imply that us vaxers are part of BigPharma's conspiracy to make everyone sick.

post #32 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Right, we shouldn't assume disagreement means misunderstanding, but if someone says, for example, that dtap is dangerous to have with a new baby in the house because of shedding, that is a misunderstanding and there's no reason not to correct it.

Agreed.  It is fine to correct someone when they are truly wrong if you do it respectfully:  "Tetanus is not contagious - so we do not have to worry about people spreading it."

 

It is the greyer areas that get messy..and one should not jump to "you do not understand" without proof that is the case.  Often they have looked at the same info you have and come to a different conclusion.

post #33 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I work with statistics and explain them to people every day. I have advanced training in statistics. Trust me, most people do not understand statistics or probability and therefore risk very well at all. I don't see a problem with pointing out a misunderstanding when there clearly is one. I agree that saying someone doesn't understand when they really just disagree is patronizing and annoying.
There is some burden here in not being offensive when we speak but also not being overly ready to take offense and give each other some benefit of the doubt.


Most people don't understand statistics or probability or science in general enough to even know how much they don't understand. Therefore pointing out misunderstandings is often not productive because they think they understand perfectly. I don't agree that saying "you don't understand" is an ad hominem attack if it's the truth (I'm backed up on this by my husband, an almost-PhD rhetoritician). But even if it's not an ad hominem attack, it doesn't actually help because the response is never going to be "You're right, I don't understand science", so either way it's a pointless thing to say.

 

And it's not because tetanus isn't contagious that shedding isn't an issue, it's because it's not a live organism. Only live virus vaccines shed.

post #34 of 333

I don't tend to post in the vaccinations forum, but I do a lot of reading there, and so I'll share an observation. I think that this is an area where people have very deeply held world views that provide the foundation for what information they look at, how they look at it, how they interpret it. The conversation usually appears as a conflict over facts/stats/data but really, there are fundamental world views underlying all of that which are driving how people post & respond. It's kind of like getting together a bunch of devoutly religious people and a bunch of committed atheists and trying to talk about the proper role of religion in society. There are going to be strong opinions on both sides, and very little room to convince others to change their minds. Maybe there are a few people who don't know where they stand, but most people in the conversation are already deeply entrenched in their world view and the line of thinking that flows from that view.

 

I do believe that conversing about differing world views is helpful and beneficial to everyone. The conversation seems to be productive when people focus on articulating their own experience:

--Here's my experience...here are the things that have happened to me.

--Here are my influences...things that have an impact on how I make my decisions.

--Here are my resources...things that I trust to guide me.

--Here are my concerns & questions...places where I am still seeking.

 

The conversation gets unproductive when it becomes about convincing, persuading, refuting, or discrediting others. I think it's inevitable that these things will come up in a debate, I just don't think they tend to advance the conversation. In fact, they often de-rail it. I do think it can be helpful to ask others to clarify their P.O.V. (i.e. questions like, "Can you say more about why you consider X an unreliable source?"), if it is done in a spirit of really trying to listen and understand where the other person is coming from, not just anticipating the next comeback to make.

 

It is very hard to listen to one another. I'm not sure most people come into this conversation in order to listen. I see most people joining in because they want to be heard. It's certainly valid to want to be heard, and there are people who are really looking for others who can relate to their experience. If there's a way for us to be clear about our motivations for joining conversations, I think that is so helpful.

 

One thing I like about MDC is that we get to have intelligent conversations about how to talk to each other intelligently. smile.gif

post #35 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama View Post

 

I haven't seen that recently. But what I was talking about with the conspiracy, is that even when someone doesn't use the word "conspiracy" but say something like, "Well, we know that vaccines can cause (insert chronic conditions here), so Big Pharma wants to make sure everyone is vaxed because then they ensure their profits through the use of the drugs to treat (insert chronic conditions here)" - thats describing a conspiracy theory. Anyone who posts that is saying that BigPharma is a big huge conspiracy. Which is of course something some people consider debatable, and I personally don't believe in gigantic conspiracies that involve millions of people (the Dr's, nurses, government, everyone in any medical capacity would have to be involved - which is just not believable). But its insulting to imply that us vaxers are part of BigPharma's conspiracy to make everyone sick.

maybe it is an issue of placement?

 

Let's assume there are non-vaxxers who believe Big Pharm wants to make everyone sick.  They are entitled to that belief.

 

Maybe there are pro-vaxxers who think we have all been duped by the internet and the likes of Jenny McCarthy.  I think that is an insulting belief, but perhaps they are entitled to it as well?

 

Is entitled to a belief the same as entitled to post it?'  Obviously not, when taken to extreme, but those gray zones are killer

 

I think speaking about controversial beliefs may be Ok on the more exclusive forums.  Ex:  It might be Ok to talk about how Big pharm wants to make everyone sick  on the non-vax forum.  It is not going to insult pro-vaxxers, as they do not hang out there.

 

OTOH, I do wish the pro-vaxxers had a space where they could vent and say more controversial stuff without walking on eggshells around  non/sel/del.  Yes, I wish you had your own forum (and not just when you tick me off, lol)  Fair is fair.

 

I am not sure how to reconcile controversial discussion with being respectful and not insulting people.  

post #36 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama View Post

 

I haven't seen that recently. But what I was talking about with the conspiracy, is that even when someone doesn't use the word "conspiracy" but say something like, "Well, we know that vaccines can cause (insert chronic conditions here), so Big Pharma wants to make sure everyone is vaxed because then they ensure their profits through the use of the drugs to treat (insert chronic conditions here)" - thats describing a conspiracy theory. Anyone who posts that is saying that BigPharma is a big huge conspiracy. Which is of course something some people consider debatable, and I personally don't believe in gigantic conspiracies that involve millions of people (the Dr's, nurses, government, everyone in any medical capacity would have to be involved - which is just not believable). But its insulting to imply that us vaxers are part of BigPharma's conspiracy to make everyone sick.

maybe it is an issue of placement?

 

Let's assume there are non-vaxxers who believe Big Pharm wants to make everyone sick.  They are entitled to that belief.

 

Maybe there are pro-vaxxers who think we have all been duped by the internet and the likes of Jenny McCarthy.  I think that is an insulting belief, but perhaps they are entitled to it as well?

 

Is entitled to a belief the same as entitled to post it?'  Obviously not, when taken to extreme, but those gray zones are killer

 

I think speaking about controversial beliefs may be Ok on the more exclusive forums.  Ex:  It might be Ok to talk about how Big pharm wants to make everyone sick  on the non-vax forum.  It is not going to insult pro-vaxxers, as they do not hang out there.

 

OTOH, I do wish the pro-vaxxers had a space where they could vent and say more controversial stuff without walking on eggshells around  non/sel/del.  Yes, I wish you had your own forum (and not just when you tick me off, lol)  Fair is fair.

 

I am not sure how to reconcile controversial discussion with being respectful and not insulting people.  

 

Hmm...If people believe that BigPharm is all a big conspiracy, maybe they should stick to the non-vax forum and not venture out much? People interested in not vaxing are going to peek into that forum and will see the conspiracy theory. I don't really believe in big echo chambers without any voices of dissent though. And really, if I want a place to talk about how loony non-vaxers are, I know where to go ;)

post #37 of 333
I don't feel the need or a vaxxers only forum.
post #38 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by erigeron View Post


Most people don't understand statistics or probability or science in general enough to even know how much they don't understand. Therefore pointing out misunderstandings is often not productive because they think they understand perfectly.

 

This is an elitist and assumptive thing to say.  You really have no idea of who you are arguing with on the internet or their ability to understand science and stats.  Even if it is a true statement when applied to the general public at large, it is pretty inflammatory to bring up on a thread about how we can get along better .  There is no point to bringing this up.

 

I don't agree that saying "you don't understand" is an ad hominem attack if it's the truth (I'm backed up on this by my husband, an almost-PhD rhetoritician). But even if it's not an ad hominem attack, it doesn't actually help because the response is never going to be "You're right, I don't understand science", so either way it's a pointless thing to say.

 

I completely agree with the bolded.

 

And it's not because tetanus isn't contagious that shedding isn't an issue, it's because it's not a live organism. Only live virus vaccines shed.

 

I am not sure anyone mentioned tetanus and shedding?????  Or are you simply creating an example?

 

 

.


Edited by purslaine - 5/22/12 at 4:17pm
post #39 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama View Post

 

Hmm...If people believe that BigPharm is all a big conspiracy, maybe they should stick to the non-vax forum and not venture out much? People interested in not vaxing are going to peek into that forum and will see the conspiracy theory. I don't really believe in big echo chambers without any voices of dissent though. And really, if I want a place to talk about how loony non-vaxers are, I know where to go ;)

 

I would not say "not venture out."  Really, simply because you believe in something controversial does not mean you do not have something of value to add elsewhere in a conversation.

 

I was simply trying to say some talk (like the conspiracy theory talk that offends you) might be better placed in the non-vaxxing forum.

post #40 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama View Post

 

Hmm...If people believe that BigPharm is all a big conspiracy, maybe they should stick to the non-vax forum and not venture out much? People interested in not vaxing are going to peek into that forum and will see the conspiracy theory. I don't really believe in big echo chambers without any voices of dissent though. And really, if I want a place to talk about how loony non-vaxers are, I know where to go ;)

Loony?  Trying to bait me, ssm?  And on this thread? tsk, tsk, tsk.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccination Forum Guidelines Reminder and Discussion