This is important to remember, I believe, when thinking about how people may come around to our point of view. Half of people are below average intelligence (who knows, we might be among them!), and true numeracy or a real intuitive grasp of statistics is exceedingly rare*. Scientific literacy, despite the widespread fandom of "science" (the brand) is also rare.
People, by and large, don't respond to facts/numbers/cold things like that, they are emotional creatures and it was an astonishingly successful emotional campaign that put them into this state.
It's really no use whatsoever showing someone, say, a chart comparing excess deaths over recent years, or data regarding hospital capacities. It has no impact. It has meaning but no impact.
Consider being in an argument with your significant other, emotions run high, when have facts and "data" ever been of use? It's all about emotional manipulation (a dirty word but that's what it is - benevolent, hopefully) to bring them around. Using the right words, the right tone of voice, the right body language.
You don't sell someone a product, service, investment or new political regime by laying out the facts in a black & white brochure and giving them time with a calculator to go over it all.
People are emotional creatures first, and quasi-rational ones second, if at all.
People have to want an end to lockdown FIRST (for personal, emotional, selfish reasons) and THEN the corresponding data will make sense to them. I think there's a case to be made that many of the keenest supporters of lockdowns among the public (certainly among my wider acquaintances) were those for whom lockdown offered some kind of long-awaited comfort or benefit - something closer to a society they liked. Those who found it most objectionable were the ones for whom it was the most inconvenient, who had the most to lose and whose favoured activities and plans were worst hit.
No one (no one at all) from my extended group of friends and "friends" cares about lockdowns in practice, any more - and they haven't since the middle of summer. At the beginning, but a small handful of us came together in our shared scepticism, and had to be very careful what we said to others (90% easily).
A small proportion still pay it lip service today; posting pro-lockdown material on facebook but attending illegal gatherings every weekend to complain about it with the rest of us. There are still some virtue signalling points to be had on SM, but this is fading fast and from where I stand it seems that relatively few people think it's worth it any more. A conversation yesterday with a friend who, in March and April, threatened to call the police when informed about my planned camping trips, and who was viciously pro-lockdown, now writes in exactly the same manner I do and, unprompted, complains that the collateral damage is much worse than covid could ever be.
Why the change of heart in this case? I suspect because an important summer of travelling was written off, and her family business is closing its doors for good after Half Term - as a direct result of lockdowns. This bad sentiment towards lockdowns overwhelmed her former affection for them.
Anyway, where am I going with this. Basically, we have to remember that facts and rational thought didn't get us into this mess and they're unlikely to get us out of it. To the susceptible person, A carries far more weight than B:
A
> "Cases are spiralling out of control"
> "Hospitals are close to being overwhelmed"
B
> "Cases is the wrong word to use here, what they mean are merely positive tests, and considering the false-positive rate and the usual incidence of upper respiratory tract infections anyway from this time of year, you can see that..."
> "Actually, ICU capacity always runs at about 85% for October and we're marginally below that now, also if we count the number of unused beds in the Nightingale hospitals then..."
their eyes glaze over
Perhaps lockdown scepticism obeys the "either extreme" rule when it comes to intelligence, i.e. the bottom and the top, while the midwits take it all on keenly on board. An over-simplified idea would be:
> The virus isn't very harmful at all, let us be free! -------> low intelligence, doesn't see bigger picture
> Ah, but, it's still bad enough that healthcare systems (which run a tight ship at the best of times) could be overwhelmed, leading to many more deaths from other causes. Lock us down! -------> middling intelligence, sees a 2nd-order effect
> Ah, BUT, we're quantitatively nowhere near that happening, and as you can see from this the lockdowns themselves are causing myriad severe harms and [... extended argument ...] let us be free! ------> higher intelligence, sees complex and intricate global nth-order effects
I've rather lost track of this post but I think my point was that we must remember that as lockdown sceptics we probably already see the world in a different way to the majority who fell for the propaganda, and are vulnerable to fundamentally different modes of persuasion than the majority. Referring an normie to Carl Heneghan's twitter is likely to leave them wondering, "well... what's his point?" while in the early days for many of us it likely provided a crucial reminder that we weren't, quite, alone.
Anyway - remember. People who have a different view than you are fundamentally not like you and if they are to be won over (as I believe they are coming to be - though that doesn't affect govt policy, of course) we can't talk to them like we'd talk to ourselves.
*Rare even among those whose job it is to work with them, let alone the general population. And among those who do make a career out of such things, even then the statistics are not the final product but just a means to an end. An actuary could not command such a high salary unless the final outcome of his work was more moolah for the insurance company, and scientific research is plagued with garbage and grant-hunting biases that outsiders would scarcely believe.
Yes, I'm going to try the emotive approach myself.
Yesterday my husband saw a report in the press, saying 4 newborn babies had died in Australia because lockdown travel restrictions prevented them being transferred elsewhere for urgent heart surgery.
I don't know how anybody could read something like that and not experience the feeling of their blood boiling.
Perhaps that is the way to go? If it can happen in Australia, it could happen here.
Different people need a different approach. Headlines grab attention for most. Some will take them on face value, but others will want to challenge. If they do not see substantiating evidence, they will drop the subject.
For example, my recent post on the effectiveness of face masks has a chart that states "Masks make no difference." When used as a headline, that would grab attention. Even better, "Proven - covid masks do not work!" Then some people will want to know why, and the evidence is there to be seen.
In order to bring about an end to this farce, we need to get people on board. Now some will get on board with a mere headline. I suggest such people are less likely to take action. They are not the inquisitive, challenging type. They might just stay at home and have a gripe.
The people we need to get on board are those who can see something is wrong and have the means and the will to do something about it. For these people, information - numbers, facts and so on - is their ammunition.
The original post is absolutely bang on. It's all about emotions and not logic. I'll just add a few additional points:
1. The key takeaway for all of us is if you're talking to someone and trying to persuade them, don't bother with logic or numbers. You can tell them that later if needed, but just focus on appealing to emotion, AND on how the restrictions will affect the listener or people/places they care about.
2. Lockdown scepticism doesn't seem to be related to intelligence to me. It's more correlated with a certain type of personality plus how much you are personally affected - basically the kind of person who can do their job on a laptop with Zoom calls is far more likely (on average) to support lockdown than someone whose job is affected directly by restrictions - but only on average. There are plenty of people like me who can do their job at home like me (well, in theory - in practice, not with the kids around) who are anti lockdown. In some other countries - especially the USA - it has become a massive partisan political issue, but fortunately it's not a tribal political party in this country (mostly), although there are some class issues.
3. Keep in mind the amplifying effect of the media in creating mass hysteria and the compounding effect of early decisions which can't easily be reversed later (like the early focus on raw case numbers without taking number of tests or excess deaths into account). Also the amplifying effect of the media (especially with the original Ferguson paper, but not only that) which drove Boris to reverse himself and go into lockdown. This in itself is partly because of a profit motive (it is very profitable for media companies to sensationalize things and whip up mass hysteria because it means more clicks and more readers and more engagement and more money) and because the journalists who control the news are overwhelmingly in the "I can do my job on Zoom" category and FAR more likely to support lockdown than a random cross section of people in the country
I agree with a number of points made and I do think the emotion route is a good one but it's hard trying to also balance your own emotions when met with complete ignorance when you are looking at the bigger picture , the consequences of lockdowns masks social distancing ect and where this is heading .
Another post on here talked about a task of trying to het people to imagine the bigger picture and intended and unintended consequences and hopefully lockdown sceptics. One who is now a sceptic after chats ect with me told me today her boyfriend who was pro lockdown and was supportive of all the government measures was about to track and trace at a restaurant( habit) they were at then stopped and changed his mind as he is now a sceptic. It was pure habit prior to that moment so it was nice that he really stopped and thought about it. Of course both of us were delighted.
What would be helpful here are simple things like the headlines you suggest so we can continue to send the message to others so please help with your ideas and fill in the blanks. Once I take a step back and breath ( helped by having no face nappy on 😛 😛 ) and get a check on my own emotions ( which can run high) I can calmly ,quickly and simply get the message across about lockdown sceptics.
Face masks dont work because...............
The rule of 6 is in place because..............
Track and trace is not working because.....
There are a high number of false positives because....
There will be mass unemployment because....
And so on.
I have also found that asking people lots of questions really works as they ask lots of questions back and seem more interested in an alternative view and in my experience so far have arrived at lockdown scepticism themselves. Eg why do you think lockdowns are working..?do you think the lockdown has done more good than harm?what do you think lockdown achieved? ( apologies if this is also over the place as I am trying to multi task at the moment
😉😗😗😁
