That “slippery slope” is absolutely vital to slither down if you want to formulate public policy.
If you don’t understand why people mistrust “big pharma” or “big government” or "big " and reflexively dismiss anything that involves them, you cannot formulate public policy that will be effective.
Very rarely do people say “I’m going to dismiss centuries of scientific progress for this quack cure” without a reason. It’s maybe not a reason you agree with. It’s maybe not a reason reality agrees with. But you know what it might be? It might be a reason that traces back to how "big " has acted toward such people in the past, often persistently over a long period of time, that has led to that breakdown in trust. In short: you (as in the beneficiaries of the status quo and "big ", directly or indirectly) may be at least partially historically culpable in the opposition you now face.
Now I get it: accepting that you yourself are partially culpable for “irrational” opposition is a bitter elixir to swallow, but if you don’t take that first step toward understanding, you can’t take the second step to correcting the problem. And the problem will continue to fester and take root until, oh, I don’t know, something utterly fucking insane happens and a million of your fellow citizens die in a public health disaster because half your population doesn’t trust the very institutions that were needed to prevent said disaster.
So maybe you should learn to enjoy sliding down slippery slopes. Or, you know, die in the next easily-preventable pandemic. Like a million of your fellow citizens (assuming you’re American: insert your own numbers for your own country if not) did in the current one.
moistclump@lemmy.world 1 year ago
It’s not alternative facts, or accepting that anything someone is saying is True. But maybe trying to start from a place of “this is true for them and I wonder why that is, because it’s so far from what I know to be true.”
The separate knower might say “hydrochloroquine is not as good as science.” They’d be right and could absolutely leave it at that.
In my opinion though, the connected knower actually has a chance to change their stance through empathy and curiosity, recognizing the way that under education and economic strife has disillusioned this person from trusting science and being curious about whether or not a path exists for this person back to truth and science.
Makes me think of this wonderful man, Daryl Davis: npr.org/…/how-one-man-convinced-200-ku-klux-klan-…
Compassion is not the same as blind acceptance of what they’re saying or rejection of science and truth. It’s bringing in a human element and choosing connection and curiosity.
richieadler@lemmy.myserv.one 1 year ago
“True for them” is the wrong way to put it. “X is something they believe, even in the face of contrary evidence” is a better way.
DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de 1 year ago
I can tell you’re a very separate knower.
richieadler@lemmy.myserv.one 1 year ago
And now in a human language, please.