Sometimes just the confidence in your truth such that you don't need to convince others is enough for people to say "hey, maybe there is something to this I'm missing".
The only reason I refuse to take the vaccine is how ineffective it is, I suffer from extreme phobia of needles, I get nervous even thinking about them, I hate when they take my blood, and I would have to undergo it how many times, atleast 2, possibly 3? 4? or more times? Thats just beyond ridiculous. Unless the vaccine becomes 1 shot and done its just not happening for me, I overcome my fear and take it only to get forced to take it again half a year later, nah
@@Glade4 I used to deeply fear injections, but these covid vaccines barely hurt compared to the other boosters. The 2nd dose was legit the most painless shot I ever had in my entire life. Some med-workers are able to inject it fast enough, and you would barely notice if it went in or not. My advice is to look away/close your eyes and stay stationary, relax every part of your body to mitigate pain. A few hours after the shot, remove the bandaid to avoid skin-tugging aches. Thats how I did it.
@@Glade4 that’s pretty understandable honestly, but for me personally (although I don’t have a fear of needles) the shot itself never hurt either time. You don’t really feel it. The really crappy part is the immune response after your second shot (or first, depends on the case). That shit sucks
@@Glade4 hi, i understand where you're coming from. I'm also afraid of needles. I've fainted before, when they were taking blood. Usually the only thing you will feel is the needle through your skin, which feels like when you put your nails against your skin. What I did is I took my mom with me, because I couldn't trust myself not fainting. There were also first aid rooms and I requested to be vaccinated there, so I could lay down and so that there would be a professional nurse too. I don't know if that's possible where you live, but it really helped me. Of course the question is now, with all the new variants if it will be enough.
The first part was the key: match energy, probe for understanding, ask them to share everything first. People want to be understood and respected. Once you are both matched in energy and respect, the rest is keeping the levels balanced as you share your side.
Love this. I really started to learn how to do this after watching your interview with hafu. In it you said something similar: when you go into something trying to convince, you go in with an expectation of how the convo will go. Instead, go in with no expectation, focus on sharing your viewpoint, and be okay with whatever outcome. I found much more success once i started approaching disagreements with this method! Like you said, once you stop trying to convince, you can actually do better at “convincing”, because what it actually is is pooling your resources to arrive at a collaborative solution, which can happen to be yours if you were genuinely more educated about the issue in the first place, but might not be, which would also be good for u. Thanks for sharing as usual. You’re doing amazing work
I realized I've been doing this subconsciously during conversations with new people, and this explains why it's suddenly easier for me to make new friends. After some thinking I understand that this approach appeared after I lowered my expectations from people, like really lowered it, mostly because I've been dealing with people stuck-up in their own logic. At some point I would just ask them to explain their standing in detail and then offer my side as a benefit/potential solution for a weakness in their logic, works most of the time. The other times it's a barrier of experience, some people can't believe that some things are possible, very hesitant, but somehow managed to convince them to try anyway by structuring the benefits to fit their logic.
The sad thing is that this is rarer nowadays. People have been turned to be arrogant and their goal isn't understanding or communication, it's to be validated. For a healthier society would should teach people how to communicate and to feel validated even if others may have different views.
@@joesussy3737 That goes both ways, though. The majority of people who are vaccinated are only vaccinated because of social pressure, not because they actually apply reason to the topic. Does that make them any more reliable on the subject than antivaxxers who are... Unvaccinated because of social pressure?
A lot of this applies to interpersonal communication in general. I have been having a lot of success in my relationship by actually NOT trying to argue my case when there is a conflict and just listen to what my partner's case is. Only after you fully listen to their side and "reflect" it back to them to prove you understand their point, you can then bring up your case and they are more likely to be understanding. This isn't just for romantic partners, it can be friends, coworkers, family, etc. I'm not perfect but I'm getting better at it and I can honestly see a lot of improvement in our communication.
Just watch out for your silence to become cimplicit in carelessness or indifference. I've had that happen to me. There are some people cannot please anyhow.
@@eax2010EA This is good advice, and to avoid that issue it's best to throw in little "okays" or "mhmm" and otherwise confirm what you're hearing with short noises. But remember it depends on context and what's being discussed. After a while of talking with reflective listening with someone they can pick up that you are listening based on your body language and vocalizations
Great perspective… the problem is that social media normally doesn’t allow this kinds of lengthy, thoughtful exchanges. And I think that’s the main cause of the polarization. Any tips, on how to make quick exchanges, or chats, more constructive?
The only tip I can give you is this: social media isn't meant to have this conversations. The conversations get dumbed down because we try to adapt them to the format of twitter, facebook, youtube comments, etc. And when the time comes for us to seriously disscuss it, we gotta deal with all the tangly mess that we created and spread in the game of broken telephone that is the internet before we can even begin talking about the actual stuff. This is the kind of stuff you've gotta deal with in the real world.
I would straight up say to people, "Hey I would love to have an in depth conversation about this, but this is not the platform for it. Let me know if you want to hop on discord." or something along those lines. The problem is when there's an audience people are going to feel tempted to play to the crowd, using cheap tactics to win applause or likes.
@@paperfart3988 exactly The juicy gotcha one-liner showman punchline looks good, gets a crowd reaction and polarizes people, but it adds nothing of value to the conversation This is why american presidential debates look more like a reality show circus every time
If anyone likes this I definitely suggest checking out Street Epistemology. People like Anthony Magnabosco or Reid from Cordial Curiosity are really doing some amazing stuff in terms of non confrontational conversation regarding beliefs
@@gerunkwon2598 as much as I like Destiny, I wouldn't recommend him IN THIS VEIN. He has an amazing level of analytical skill in understanding and breaking down an argument in real time, and he's an excellent orator and honestly knows his stuff 99% of the time, and especially on this subject. But he's a debate guy, the result is that he is convincing, but that's not his aim, he's just looking for sound arguments. And if you've watched him, you will agree that he's hard to watch at times. Not in an insufferable way, but he appeals to a very specific pallete if you will. I love his content, despite very vociferous disagreements I have on some of his takes, but he is NOT someone most people will enjoy watching, despite his top tier skill set.
@@gerunkwon2598 I personally will disagree with and agree with Loengrinn. Destiny is a great debater and sometimes can be good at convincing others. I've just seen Destiny lose his cool too many times, granted, so did the other person. It's great for views, but in reality, I think Destiny's approach to convincing people is a horrible approach most of the time
I'm not sure what Dr. K is doing is directly comparable with Street epistemology, though... Much of those conversations is (even explicitly from the 'how tos') about avoiding conversations about evidence. They want to talk about doubt of evidence, but very rarely (from what I've seen) do they get into the actual reasons, and check out their legitimacy. They would normally rather set up some (hopefully) parallell case, and show that it's possible to doubt it. What Dr. K. Here describes, while not being debate, would still be an open and honest conversation and would seem to benefit of discussing actual evidence for and against from each side. While SE becomes an interesting and explorative conversation, the premises of going into them seem to actually be opposite of what Dr. K suggests. SE would be about exploring how to doubt something, going into the conversation assuming the person has not been skeptical enough on the positions he holds. Dr. Ks method would be more of a conversation getting to a common understanding, and as he explicitly said, assuming that the person actually knows what he's talking about, and even is right. (Even though you may also think you are right, and then meet the others argument, and all) While both can make great conversations, they seem to me like fundamentally different approaches. What do you think of this? Is it just that I don't understand either SE or Dr. K? Or is it something else I'm missing?
@@rll1236 No you don't need to be smarter, even a lot of scientists can still be wrong, not saying that they are! Telling people to just take it because all the experts recommend just won't help. Especially if there is a FEW experts in the field that don't recommend it for whatever reasons.
This is great. I think it's crucial include that A. you can't control what others believe (this can be hard to accept) and B. maybe you're wrong or don't know- especially if it's regarding someone else's life.
Most people who think that people with a different opinion are *insert insult* , are the ones who truly don't understand the other person's perspective. Because if you understand why someone thinks a certain way, they are no longer *insert insult* to you, because there is some form of logic (even if wrong) there. Anyone who disagrees with me is obviously a *insert insult*
Said insult could be something somewhat independent of their rationality (e.g. dumb, dishonest, ignorant, weird, being a loser, etc.). Plus, it’s very common for people to have irrational and illogical beliefs and thought processes anyway.
Hey Dr K I love that you put this up. I rarely engage in arguments and if I do I do it in this manner and the contrast was very clear back when I had a girlfriend who did debate. Her approach was trying to bully me into admitting "defeat" while I aimed to be constructive. One thing I want to ask though: in this video you are explaining this from the perspective of someone who is right, or at least more right than the other guy, so the objective is to convince them that they aren't foolproof and they still need to properly evaluate their reasoning in light of your questions and your ideas. But could you also make a video about entering a conversation without taking an a priori assumption of being correct, making the goal to just fend off, placate, or convince the other party? In this case you are trying to enter a constructive argument where your goal is to "test" your story against his questions, and his goal is to test his story against yours, so that hopefully you both can learn something and whoever needs to adjust their opinion, even if it's you, can do so. I'm also unsure if this is the best way to deal with non-trivial conflict because if the other party is headstrong, your willingness to concede can be fully exploited. That makes it so the guy who yelled more and was more confident (even if stupidly) in himself ultimately gets it his way. You've had a video about communicating effectively, but I think that was aimed at the context of relationships, where an emphasis is being put on keeping emotions cool and letting the person feel they are being heard.
@Sasha Lemay Absolutely, none of this really works with people who are so far in that they believe something factually false is the absolute truth, I'd love to see a video of how to approach those conversations because it feels really hopeless
I don't think you took the essence of the video. I might be wrong but it sounds to me like he was not entering the conversation with a prior assumption that he was right. He did say no judgement, which probably means that from your perspective, neither of the differing stances should be seen as right or wrong.
You sound like you are talking about situations with more than two people, and are worried about looking wrong to the “audience”. In these cases, (assuming your only goal is to look right) taking a headstrong approach, not conceding anything, and operating under the precedent that your opponent is wrong is the best idea. That is why that is taught and done in competitive debate. I’m not sure exactly how to help you with your girlfriend situation, but I know I am the exact same way often, and I’m trying to stop being that way.
This really hits home with me. My boyfriend doesn't want to get vaccinated and I've already got mine. These exact conversations have happened with us and we actually defend each other's point of view to our peer groups. We've been asked 'how' we can stay together being on opposite ends of this really polarizing topic but like, that's just it. I've been unrightfully called a 'sheeple' by his unvaccinated friends and people naturally assume he's a conspiracy wacko from my friends. Its just untrue and quite rude tbh on both ends. He and I both have valid reasons for our choices, no one is an idiot, you've got to listen and ask questions.
This is the same situation with my and my gf. She got it, I don’t. We don’t even talk about it tbh, besides when I bring up the nonsense going around it and how it’s being used as a political tool. I don’t resent her for getting it, she had her reason and I respect it, same as she respects my reasoning for not wanting it. We both agree we would never go places that require the “vaccine” to enter, as well as we both agree that forcing people to get it is not the way to go. Let people make their decision, and everything will be ok. I would never tell anyone who gets it is wrong, hey you do what you wanna do, but I will never let anyone for e me into taking it. Also the whole thing about “take it so things can go back to normal” that’s not gonna happen, and also it sounds the same to me as “hey if you wanna be able to live, you gotta cut off your arm, because everyone else is doing it”, or some other ridiculous premise like that.
I always said "If i can't argue for the thing I'm arguing against then i don't bother" meaning, i have to fully understand the thing I'm arguing against. If you fully understand it then you know its strengths and weaknesses
People pick and choose strength and weaknesses tho. Then it becomes a battle of whose sources do we deem credible. Once the conversation reaches the point of judging whose sources are deemed acceptable or not; the true essence of tribalism rears it’s head and people divulge to whatever group they’re are most comfortable with in the beginning. Thus the dialogue is useless if the conversation ultimately boils down to a persons perspective on institutions on this planet.
And thats where it gets hard for me because this topic in particular is sooo convoluted with all its political implications and seemingly endless layers of constantly changing information you have to dig through to make the actual decision that at the end of it, no matter what you do, there is the uneasy feeling you haven't done enough research :/ And let's be honest no one really wants to bother themselves with all this in the first place....
There's a term for that called "Steel-manning" as in the opposite of straw-manning. The idea is to understand the best version of something you disagree with, and even strive to make it stronger than the way it was presented to you.
My therapist spent about 15 minutes of our last appointment trying to convince me to vaccinate. Was definitely not the conversation I needed from him that day. The thing people need to understand about many of us who are unvaccinated, is that it isn’t about conspiracy, distrust, or ill intent. The only thing I truly fear with the vaccine is unintended consequences or side effects. I am a healthy 25yo and see myself as low risk, and so I choose for myself to wait and see more data. I love and respect everyone for their decision to vaccinate, nearly all my friends have it. All I ask is that you show some patience and try to see things from my POV before trying to start a debate. In the meantime, I will continue to wear masks, er on the side of caution when I have a tickle in my throat, and repeatedly quarantine if I have to. Loved the video Dr. K. Keep up the good work
I'm not an anti-vaxxer, I'm actually vaccinated. But I totally understand why some people might not want to get vaccinated, It requires a big amount of faith in the government that it was tested properly and that the vaccine is actually a vaccine, that the doctor washes their hands properly etc. So I don't think they are 'wrong' necessarily.
Thing is those people don't maintain that sort of criticism with the FDA or other government organizations. Our entire life is based on trust of other people doing their shit right. Are you going to buy food from the store? How do you know it was handled properly? You don't. They don't. This issue is political and religious at this point. They are fixated on this because it was politicized and it scares them.
This is very interesting insight. I appreciate it very much. I've tried to do similar things in conversations with a family member in my life (Not about Vax issues, this person claims that decisions I have made for myself that have been very good for me have hurt them for reasons that I don't understand.) The only huge issue that I've run into is that when I ask "Can you explain this to me?" I get met with anger because according to them, "You're smarter than that. You shouldn't have to ask." I've tried to continue to genuinely ask, but then the family member will change the subject or walk away from the conversation.
I'm thinking it's one of a few issues: they are embarrassed/ashamed of the reason even though they choose to believe it, they don't know the reason themselves, or they know the reason but can't explain it well and so display anger as an outward expression of their inability to explain. If it's the first one, try to meet them on that level and/or praise them a bit--e.g., show that you are ashamed of not knowing the reason (e.g., "I know I should be smarter than that, but I really can't figure it out--it's embarrassing that I don't get the reason, and can you please help me"). If it's the last one, maybe try to ask them to explain parts of it at a time, hopefully making it easier for them.
@ES Videos Well, if you have two people with very different versions of reality, I think these techniques are applicable. What I'm just pointing out is that it's hard to proceed with a strategy like this if the other person finds the idea of you disagreeing, questioning, or not understanding them as insulting. I don't think it's the issue at hand that renders these communication methods useful or useless, but the mindset of the people involved.
what I feel is missing, or I'm not understanding is 'what if the premise is wrong?" Regardless how influential you are at convincing another party to side with you, if your premise is flawed from the beginning, then are you actually listening to their point of view? or feigning knowledge until they join you? Complicated subjects are never black and white. This is the problem with trying to hive mind a planet on any subject. What works for some, will be counterintuitive for others. Even if your techniques are well intentioned, this starts with the arrogance that 'my side will be correct if I just lead them to think like me." That aside, will grant it could be good for letting those hard locked in their biases to open up and consider alternative views better without their pride flaring up. But still if you use this technique, it's pretty manipulative.
It’s literally war You can convince anyone of anything provided you’re skilled enough in persuasion and emoting It’s one of the deepest and scariest rabbit holes out there
@@KinnetMontana or just your average person leaning into narcissism. its a choice of mindset between war/hate/ego and collaboration/cooperation/understanding when your creating your world view It's all war! Sounds like you had a crap life and haven't cleaned yourself up yet
though it sounds manipulative, i think dr. k made clear that u shouldn't start the conversation to persuade them. if you're genuinely confident about your opinion or arguments you might be sure ull end up convincing them (which sounds manipulative but i only consider it a prediction). and if u end up falling short on arguments and you genuinely didn't start the discussion to convince, you'll be fine with it. it doesn't mean you're necessarily wrong, maybe u just lack research. at least that's what i got from it as a really argumentative person. and the mirroring technique sounded manipulative as well, but i don't think we should stigmatize it, i think it's just a social interaction technique that will help in case of a discussion. if it doesn't work you'll have to be fine with it as well i guess
1) Proving someone else wrong is a terrible way to convince them you're right. Forget Debating. 2) Let go of Judgment and treat them w/ respect - go in assuming they are right and do your best to understand them. Use "Emotional Mirroring", match the emotional level then take a step back and reduce it. 3) Don't try to convince them they're wrong, try instead to understand the process of how they got to that conclusion. *don't pounce on the weaknesses of their arguments; don't attack and instead express confusion. 4) Once you've understood, repeat back their argument then ask for permission to share your point of view. -Address points of view that you don't agree with in a non-judgmental way. -Concede to their points when you can but hold your own. -Then ask if they're willing to consider your PoV. - Ask for their opinion to what you believe and let them be the final judge. 5) Once they make that final judgment; lay your boundary (Convincing people takes time and normally can't be done in one session)
I was having a particularly prickly conversation with a guy at my job. All I did was express my concerns about the vaccine. Afterwards the guy instantly lumped me in to an anti-vaxxer box even though I'm vaccinated. Afterwards all he said was I was wrong and that I need to look into the science. It was extremely hard to want to continue a conversation with this guy.
@@MetalMachine93 well there are some valid concerns about the vaccine being rushed. Like how they were able to be developed in a year. I was skeptical at first so I googled it. I'm not going to claim it was "research" and "free-thinking" like antivaxxers commonly do. Turns out a vaccine can be developed a lot quicker when you don't have to start from zero and all scientists are willing to collaborate. COVID-19's a coronavirus after all. It aligned with what I was taught, what I have experienced, and what the people I trust believed and that's honestly enough to convince me. So I got vaxxed
I'm not vaccinated and don't plan on doing so, but I also advocate that most American's should get it because most Americans have some kind of co-morbidity that puts them at greater risk for Covid complications, i.e. obesity or diabetes. As a healthy, fit 21 year old, I don't consider myself at risk enough to warrant getting the vaccine, and I always assumed that was my choice to make. What happens though is no matter how hard you explain yourself, most people are always looking for ways to think they're better than other people. They think they're doing some great altruistic duty by getting this vaccine, when scientifically, all they're doing is lowering their own risk of complications or hospitalization. Neither side on the extremes actually cares about the science, they'll pick the facts that support their worldview and discard the ones that don't.
Love it. I don't take either side, but what rings true is the adage "seek first to understand, and then be understood". It's always good to have a discussion instead of a debate, ideally without a lot of emotion or ad hominem. 🙌
I just respect the choices of others and expect that they respect mine. In general, this is not about vaccines per se. Live and let live. A society that forces one way of thinking, acting or living upon everyone is pathological. I don’t know any „anti-vaxxers”, but I do know a great deal of people who haven’t received every single vaccine there is on the market, because they don’t know about them, don’t care about them or just don’t feel the need for it. I also know a lot of people who haven’t received a Covid-vaccine, for various reasons. None of them are actual anti-vaxxers. A lot of them however strongly oppose the way this topic is handled politically, they oppose a discourse of surrendering individual sovereignty. They oppose a society that makes basic rights dependent on any attributes, because their belief is that we all are entitled to our rights without having to qualify for that in any way. I share their opinion. Always have. In every political debate. Vaccine policies are no exception.
I think those that haven't got the vaccine are generally hesitant due to potential side effects and how early it was pushed out. Rate now, it reasonable to say yes but their is still the potential for long term side effect down the line. If your healthy and young, I think natural immunity is the way to go.
Thank you, I breath a sigh of relief reading this. You get it. This is what it's about, ultimately. This one way or the highway mindset leads to tyranny. The Hippocratic Oath, Nuremburg Code and the constitution exist for a reason. There are way too many politics involved with these vaccines at the end of the day. *Nobody* should have this much power over what goes into people's bodies and the fact so many people are readily willing to treat unvaccinated as second-class citizens for questioning the mainstream dogma is alarming.
@@freds6187 lol right now my number one reason for not taking the vax is the authoritarian drive to make me do it. I probably wouldnt get it anyway as im young and dont have any major health problems but thats still the number one reason.
@@irislilly7515 I mean, sure, there's a certain authoritarian hand involved, depending on the country you're in, with the way the covid-vaccine situation is handled. But in the end, you can equate A LOT OF things with authoritarianism with this kind of rationale. "WHAT? I need to have a PASSPORT to not be a second class citizen?!!! WHAT...? I need to have my child get a doctors note regarding his health check so he can go to school?" "My child needs to attend school, or else there will be child services involved?" "I didnt' wear a seatbelt and the cops stopped me and fined me?" Tyranny! I mean, don't you think labelling it as a gateway to tyranny is a bit of a stretch? Many countries in the west follow democratic principles. Politicians are not some mythical beasts that appear out of nowhere - they're the same people elected by you, me or the other average joe. They have similar daily concerns and have families and experience much of the same life we do. Just that they hold more power (collectively). Why do you see people who are not vaccinated as being treated as second class citizens? I'm just curious because, to me, these types of analogies feel a bit disingenuous, as there has been real and very scary implications where people WERE actually deemed and treated as such, and most of the times it lead to extreme oppression. How are you being oppressed in this sense? To equate the experiences of those people to you requiring to provide certain proof (whether vaccination or a covid test or immunization via having been sick with covid) in order to attend places of mass gathering to avoid unnecessary risks is, IMO, demeaning to actual victims of actual tyranny. I am just curious to hear your POV, because while I agree that governments are pushing the limit of their power in order to deal with the covid pandemic, I feel like people fear monger far too much and while I am willing to listen and may even agree with some points, I just instantly lose the will to talk about these things once people start bringing up the holocaust or similar topics to equate this situation to "tyranny". It just seems wrong to me and disrespectful.
I'm not generally anti-vax. But the bullying, harassment, persecution, judgment, shaming, etc. coming from people who were supportive of the covid vaccine from the get-go is a huge reason why I refused to get it so long. Instead of judging, shaming, and bullying people for not doing what you want them to do, try to see where they are coming from. "Seek first to understand, then be understood." - Stephen Covey
Bullying and shaming and judgement etc. Is wrong, of course. People love to get on their moral high horses whenever they have the chance (look at organized religion and its followers) but in the end, I feel like certain anti-vaxxer groups are calling for it. When you start to parade and use arguments that you're going to be "holocausted" because you're not getting the jab, IMO you deserve a bit of a roast, because you're really disrespecting actual victims of real and scary tyranny.
@MarkSoFocused aight, im barely middle-IQ. Can you tell me what unpopular independent thoughts I should follow instead? You seem to be in the higher tier IQ bracket.
@MarkSoFocused There is literally a book called: "The Bell Curve Debate" because of harsh and various critiques on the book itself. It seems to not be the most clean book ever written. What is your opinion on that?
I've been putting it off until I formally move where I am currently living, and get a family doctor that I can ask regarding my concerns and to help identify my personal risk-benefit profile regarding taking the vac. Unfortunately, there is a regulatory body here that has threatened doctors for steering from the vaccine-extremism narrative in talking to patients, and giving their honest opinion about what's best for the individual patient they're talking to. Isn't that f'ed up? I won't be coerced into a medical procedure with serious side effects (for SOME people, i know, not most) and other controversies floating around, without informed consent and personalized medical consultation. And they block that...
@@SnakeHelah It's easy to point a finger at a specific group and accuse them of being on their moral high horses. But the truth is, all groups can be guilty of that, not just organized religion. Just look at the sheer amount of virtue signaling that many younger people do in order to get likes and views. As for the Holocaust point, you are coming at it from a judgmental point of view. Have you really spent the time to ask "why might people be comparing this to the Holocaust?" People aren't saying that this is the same as the holocaust; people are drawing comparisons between what is happening now and what happened leading up to the Holocaust that set the stage for it to happen (media propoganda and manipulation of communicated data, division of people into us vs them, telling the people that "those people" are dangerous to everyone else and need to be stopped, etc). Various governments have even suggested the idea of having camps for unvaccinated people. This is all stuff that happened back then. Will it result in the same outcome? Who knows. It's really easy to dismiss tyranny when it's building up, and tyranny looks very different whenever it shows up. But tyranny doesn't become obvious until AFTER it has already taken over. Look up the boiling frog analogy; tyranny works the same way.
Lol. Half the commenters would feel they have righteous cause to arrest and intern the other half of commenters into a camp in order to deprogram them. For their own good, for their own safety, simply because their patience is wearing thin. Be it your family, neighbors, co-workers. I can only laugh at how terrifying all this is. edit: words
Yea people are like, "let's calmly and rationally talk about this, but also, if you don't agree with the official goverment narrative, I'll let them use force against you and help out too."
@@warrensanders751 Problem is, government has nothing to do with it. It's mainstream scientific narrative. Why some people choose to agree with oddball lab coat wearing wackjobs instead is the weirdest thing.
@@warrensanders751 And when the government comes to do what goverments HAVE ALWAYS DONE. These same people will at best think, "I tried to tell them," or at worst, "Good, they deserve it." Or most damning, "I'm sure the goverment won't do anything bad to them" -- Read all the comments and you can figure out which person is which.
QAnon does have all signs of a destructive cult, though. Every cult and deprogramming expert out there says it. It's understandable people want to deprogram their parents. Not that it's easy or sometimes even doable.
This video helped me with the conversation I just had which was happening while I was watching the video. haha Thanks Dr. K, always appreaciate your insight and wisdom!
I've got to ask. Why are we using the word "Anti-Vaxxer" here? If someone doesn't like apple pie does that make them Anti-Pie? This word choice just isn't accurate at all.
It's to highlight the egoism going on in the subconscious of these people. I think narcissism exists on a spectrum and this language leans heavy into covert narc vibes
cause it's a term to describe people who're against vaccines. anti=against, vaxx=vaccine. if I'm genuinely against apple pie you could call be an anti-applepier i guess. not liking ≠ being against
not wanting to take one specific vaccine doesn't make you anti-vaccine , thats like saying '' Oh he hates Juan therefore he hates all mexicans '' its literally a broad generalization to discredit the person's opinion.
The answer simplified is "to create the mentality of us vs them; the other". Long version: This use of language has been going on for years and the point of it is to separate people in to different groups so it's easier for a person to be manipulated to hate all of the group. It doesn't matter what the individual thinks, if they have a certain label and that label has been primed to have negative connotations to it, the other group will react emotionally first. By reacting emotionally will suppress the logic parts of your brain. Why only have Democrats and Republicans? Why do we have White and PoC? Vaxx and anti-vaxx? College educated and uneducated? Straight and queer? Rich and poor? etc etc It's all to divide people into neat little boxes and make them hate each other because if people stopped reacting emotionally to labels that doesn't matter, they'd find commonality. And that commonality allows for critical thinking and open-mindedness.
Thank you for sharing your method of convincing others. I can see that this method would be effective in disarming a holder of an opposing viewpoint by first responding with mirrored energy, then apologizing if it's combative by offering an excuse (e.g., "I'm sorry if I sounded snappy; I've had a bad day," etc.), inviting them to express their position in greater detail, listening, asking for their permission to express the reasons for yours (prefaced by pointing out the points they maintain that you deem possibly understandable to hold), express your viewpoint and finally communicate your boundaries re what you will hold to. As someone who will not take the jab, although I would appreciate this non-dismissive approach, it would not work at all to convince me...at all. It is not a means to elicit genuine discourse with an open mind and respect for another's viewpoint. Rather, it's manipulation and assuming the other person is wrong from the jump. Sometimes we are actually wrong and do well to listen with a truly open mind.
Dr K forgot to mention clozapine's most important SE: immunosuppresion d/t decreased WBC. Kinda surprised he didn't mention that, but thats so important to know
The best thing I ever convinced my parents to do is as convincing them to stop watching the news, it’s not even a vaccine thing but the amount of stress they were under being told that the world was ending and they are gonna die every day was causing them to believe things they never would have in the past. My parents were conservative for sure, but they had gone from moderate to die hard trumpers in just a few years, needless to say after giving up the news. A few months later and my mom is saying this is the best she’s felt in years and she even got the vaccine that she said she would never get
I think that's a great way to convince someone: to assume a position of genuine interest and be willing to listen and share your point of view. But it kinda bothers me that, in the other hand, you're considering that the other side is being unreasonable and you need to enlightening it. I totally agree with the first part, and if someone change their mind in the process, great! but if you're pretending to be willing to listen and understand the other person's point of view, don't start the conversation thinking about how you need to show how wrong the other side are... it would sound fake and that's really easy to perceive
@Sasha Lemay Agreed. Take a close look at the chat rolling past. The chat knows what is up. At some point there are a ton of people going 'wait, this can go the other way'. Of course it can go the other way. The truth is not yours to control, it is yours to understand. Any powerful technique to make people see the light is either offputtingly obviously manipulative or an honest exploration of issue. And then one always runs the risk of seeing the light themselves,.... as they should.
This video rightfully points out that if someone perceives you as trying to convince them, it won't work. Absolutely agree. But the suggestion then seems to be to try to fake having an honest conversation. The implication still seems to be that you know you're right and they are wrong and you still want to change them. I would suggest that an even better approach is to give up trying to convince them at all. Have an honest conversation where you both try to understand each other and figure out where you differ. That will probably help with understanding each others' boundaries. But you absolutely should not go into it expecting them to change, even slowly. Maybe they are actually right and you are the one that ought to change? An honest conversation is best! When you are a doctor and are speaking to unstable people from the underworld, I can see the need to protect yourself, to fake it, and not have an honest conversation, as getting dragged into the underworld is not an option you are willing to consider. But when dealing with your family and peers, I would rather assume they are decent people, not all that different from you, worthy of respect, and be willing to open myself up to consider their position.
Yeah, good luck with that interview. I'm sure the video will last about 30 min before it gets censored and taken down by TH-cam while Alok gets a strike on his channel. The always tolerant left, you see
It is important to remember that that approach only really works when you are "right" - it is much more difficult to convince people of something that is not true
I would assume that it could be productive for the one using this technique while they are wrong because a respectful conversation benefits both "parties". This because it might turn out that the person that is wrong might be convinced. While you'd generally want the opposing person to see your point, it causes you to see their point and, aside from the title of the video, I think that both participants of the conversation could benefit/learn from this technique. Not the at the beginning desired result, yet satisfying.
I feel that if you've genuinely approached someone and tried to understand them, you'd be fine with "being wrong" and walking away from the conversation having learnt from the other party, so it's a great way to approach any conversation, regardless of where you stand.
It made me smile cos that’s exactly what I do naturally….. Now I understand what I always felt but never understood- it’s powerful. And it’s exactly intended to not be. I mean, I never use it to convince ppl. Just understand, get to know them + I offer my views so they can get to know me.
Thats great but the other person has an effect on your life. Im all with you, which is why im against vaccine mandates. People should be able to make their own decisions. But people who believe in vaccine mandates will claim that they have the right to tell other people what to believe and do as it has an effect on their lives.
@@pseudonymous8702 "open their eyes" 😂 The long term effects of the vaccine can only be measured after sufficient time has passed. Only this reason is enough to not get vaccinated *for me* , aspecially when it doesn't give immunity it just "reduces the likelyhood of death" that being already incredibly low.
@@unknownentity8256 the vaccine greatly reduces the likelihood of serious ailment and lasting effects, if you do contract the disease. As for long term effects, do you apply the same scrutiny to everything? Do you live in an electro-shielded box, away from cellphones, WiFi, wireless earbuds, and 5G? All of this tech is relatively new and emits some form of radiation, you can imagine any long term effects you want but you probably don't.
@@spencechan he doesn't have to apply the same scrutiny to everything. he is free to draw the line where he sees fit. this is not about consistency for many. it is about freedom. I get to make the choice of what I eat and what vaccines I take (if any).
Talking down to a family member? No. Ostracize? Yes, if the person wants to put other family members health & safety at risk, which they are inherently doing by not taking the proper measures. In the post, they outline the fact that she is more right-wing, and through presumption only, we can assume this means she’s anti-vax, anti-mask and anti-mandate. I can also presume that their family gatherings will involve a lot of elderly individuals who are at a much higher risk of being hospitalized or dying from covid. This is especially true when they are infected with more severe variants, sometimes regardless of vaccination status. With or without this hypothetical context, I believe people should have a right to keep themselves safe just as much as I believe people should have the right to not get vaccinated.
@@Hannahtehbanana The letter said everyone else is vaccinated. I do not think the family is healthy (mentally) to begin with if this grew to such a large issue. The part where somebody sent an email to EVERYONE telling them they are invited unless they are not vaccinated but OP's mother is the only person not vaccinated and that was common knowledge. How is it not mean spirited? Just do not message her if she is uninvited. Who the fuck does that if not enemies? Nobody is risking their life by meeting her, again they are vaccinated, all of them according to OP.
@@Hannahtehbanana The vaccine is less effective than anti-bodies (especially w/ variants). If any if them cared about safety they would just have the OP's mother take an antibody test and a covid test before coming. I doubt anyone in that family cares about actual safety enough to be informed, just the virtue signal.
@@Hannahtehbanana You're drinking the Kool-aid yourself based on this comment. This is a vaccine that is proven to not limit the spread or chance of infection in relation to covid, it simply lowers your chances of hospitalization or death. It is entirely a personal decision, because it comes down to deciding if you think you're at enough of a risk to want to get the vaccine and lower it. It has no effect on the outcome of others, however that would go against the narrative of shaming those who don't get it as selfish and unempathetic.
There is such thing as truth right? Anti vaxers may not be “stupid”. But they certainly dont have beliefs that line up with reality. In order for them to change you, they not only have to do the emotional work to listen. But they also need to do the same thing if asking about the confusing parts. If you’re not confused. How can they really sway you?
@@zanard33 My impression is that vaxxers don't think it's too big of a deal that pharma companies are 100% immune for any bodily harm their products cause. Their argument being "the benefits outweigh the cons", or "the chances of side effects are so low". For someone who has had side effects to vaxxes, that kind of argumentation is just not going to work.
@@Acnologia That actually was my initial contention before getting the vaccine. Why are these multinationals getting the protection they already have with their guaranteed profits? If they really were so sure about the efficacy of their product, then they'd lay it all out in the open just like any product would.
well I have been through covid19 and was able to kick it myself at home. Got natural immunization without any meds or vaccine. Now all my friends, neighbors, family etc. pressuring me "get vaccinated get vaccinated"...I am exhausted to explain that I have immunity, natural immunity which is better than ANY vaccine so I am good but they just won't quit.
@@lambchu6459 i would tell anyone who's had covid already not to worry about re-infection. there's some data showing acquired immunity is really effective. just wait and see how you go. don't feel like you have to bow to social pressure, especially when you have a good reason.
@@spencechan appeal to authority fallacy. it would take the average person a couple hours to take a look at statistics to make a conclusion for themselves.
Stay strong, and good for you for being informed. Most of these people don't put in the time or effort to look into this stuff and take the culture of fear at face value.
Emotional Mirror: Get on the emotional level of the other person and then apologize and decrease your emotional level. -Let go of judgment and treat them with respect Forget about data, dont judge Understand their viewpoint and ask for explanations Ask for giving your point of view and feedback Lay out your final boundary understanably threw the others lens
A key point here is that this is with direct (at least audio) and live communication. This will not work via text or delayed audio.... i.e. most of social media is a horrible venue for this.
I literally did this with my ex 1000 times. When she had a bad day, she would make up an argument, and I was like “wtf is going on?” I started pretending to be mad at her back, and stop, and she instantly calmed down. It was magical.
It'd be interesting to see doctor K's take on manipulative techniques. This one video laid out a primary example from the book "presuision" on not only using reciprocity to get someone to willingly understand your point of view but also asking them to evaluate their new opinions to make lasting change in their views.
Manipulation is not the right word because of its connotations. There is nothing inherently dishonest about managing your interactions more intelligently.
@@MorganMindfulness I don't think this is manipulation. Just because it works better doesn't automatically mean u "manipulate" anyone. Maybe you could consider it dishonest to hold back your strong opinions on the topic but imo it works better if u learn to have less strong opinions on it anyway. So maybe you should GENUINELY respect their view and try to understand then there is really nothing manipulative about it I think.
@@pseudonymous8702 There's nothing dishonest about pretending to be upset with someone and then offering a false apology in a ploy to win them over? Do you want to rethink that?
When I'm talking to clients about their desire to break some stigma that may be affecting them within relationships I think it's really important to understand that we cannot change people's minds in 1 conversation. We have become so acclimatized to instant or near instant gratification that often we forget that fundamental change takes time. The only thing I would add to this
From reading the comments here I think I can safely say Dr k missed a step that should have been explicitly said out loud. Guys after you have sought to understand the other person's point of view, don't immediately ask to share your opinion. Take a minute and re evaluate your own position. Do you still think you are correct? Are you some wise shaman at the top of a mountain who knows all or is there a chance that you are the one who is mistaken? This person who asked the question has made no allowance that he might not understand his mother's concerns about the vaccine or even if she is being ostracised unfairly. Have they had a conversation about what the actually risks are? Does he really care about her concerns? Is his mother being paranoid? Who knows! This is a big problem in the vaccine debate, everyone thinks they know the other sides argument when they really aren't listening to what they actually say (I won't say which side I'm on because that's besides the point). The point is this, at the end of the day, there is no point trying to understand the other person's point of view if you are not willing to change your own IF you find out some new information that YOU didn't know. Don't assume you know everything.
I think starting with not calling them Anti-Vaxxers would be ideal. Somebody with naturally acquired immunity from previous covid-19 infection has very good reason to avoid taking a vaccine, the idea of starting out by addressing them as anti-vax means you are putting them in a box of presuppositions and assumptions which they will likely resent.
@@GothVibeWars By whom? From what? To what? For what purpose? Why would they? What makes you think that? Why should I believe you? What did you even try to say with this comment? How does it make sense as a reply to TheAnalyticalFailure? What should I do with this information? The comment has enough to make people feel uncomfortable, but not enough to actually explain what you are talking about. There is a claim, but there is no case.
@@WaterCat5 That's to be expected. Fact checkers and algorithms have been employed to remove anything they don't want people to see. In other words, whenever information or videos on this topic pops up it will be taken down within 24 hours if it's presenting anything that makes you question what they want you to believe.
@@shmeegol I guess I'm confused why they would acknowledge there are side effects (rare blood clots, mild cardio myopathy, and so on), but would hide info on a more serious, easier to identify problem. What's the point?
So.....you're saying the protected need to be protected from the unprotected by forcing them to use the same protection that doesn't protect the protected???? Cause if so, that's some bullshit.....
I don't think you understand that the virus constantly mutates, and if too many people are unvaccinated, which allows it to reproduce a lot more, it eventually yields stronger strains that could be harder to deal with. That's how the Delta strain came to be, originating from India where there were plenty of unvaccinated people (it's enormously populated after all).
@@Vegan_Kebab_In_My_Hand sorry, I don't agree. Polio didn't mutate, neither did Small Pox, Tuberculosis, etc. The protection is for YOU, not me! If you're protected, you shouldn't worry what others do. The only people I know that have gotten the 'Delta Variant' were those fully vaccinated. I was around these people, took ZERO precautions, and was completely fine. I do NOT wear a face diaper either. 95% of the population of Israel is vaccinated and their COVID death rates continue to climb. The truth is, this vaccine makes you more suspectable to getting COVID, not less! The efficacy rate is 30% for this 'experimental injection,' with zero long term studies (as the 'Good doctor pointed out)....I'll pass. My body, my choice, and this time it actually applies because I'm only talking about MY body, not a baby's.
@@katet9839 you do realise it's genetically related SARS, right? There's already a few variants of Covid, this is not speculative, this is actually happening. Everytime a virus reproduces, there's some error in the replication (mutation). Over 6 billion people have been vaccinated globally by now, if there were any major issues, it would've been obvious by now.
@@Vegan_Kebab_In_My_Hand my opinion is this, you WILL get COVID. Natural immunity has been shown to be 7 times more effective than this experimental injection. This illness has a survival rate of 99.6%, and if that scares the shit out of you.......stop eating garbage, processed food, protect your own immune system (as I do mine), and grow a spine. I have a degree in History, and though I didn't live through said times, I've studied them. When people are walking in the streets with wheelbarrows saying, "Bring out your dead!" I'll be worried😂 Until then, I'm going to live my life, as you should do too! Don't effect me, and I won't effect you, but don't come at me with that, "you unvaccinated people are spreading COVID" shit. That shits ridiculous.
Why don´t you talk about big pharma´s shady practices? Oh that´s right.. you haven´t got the balls to do that. Easier to pick on "anti-vaxxers", why don´t you get Steven Kirsch or Robert Kennedy on the show and debate them on vaccines? Do it and show us your persuasion skills firsthand.
I've always said this and it continues to be true. Most people who say they're "open-minded" are only open-minded in so far as it fits within their range of beliefs. Once they encounter someone who sits too far out of that range, then their ability to be "open-minded" usually disappears and is replaced with judgment and content
@@GiRR007 well what I mean is a situation like this, and I'll make it non political. Person a: "I'm pretty open minded when it comes to food. My favorite food is Mexican food" Person b: "Do you wanna try Indian food?" Person A: "No I don't think I would like it" Person B: "How about Indian style Tacos?" Person A: "yeah, I would try that. I'm pretty open minded". It's subtle, but you can see how person A isn't actually open minded, but is only opened minded to the extent it fits within some predefined range of beliefs.
@@GiRR007 oh, I see. Yeah that's fair. But what I was saying is people who say they are open minded aren't actually very open minded , or only open minded in certain specific areas.
Problem is that those usually complaining about open mindedness during such emergencies are usually quack conspiracy theorists mad that the rest of society won't accept their bullshit.. for e.g. antivaxxers
Prescribing antipsychotics? Jesus Christ, you’re a monster lmao I have been on risperidone and my artistic abilities vanished, I had a dystonic reaction too that caused a 10 month long headache according to my surgeon do to the sequence of events. I’ve never had a headache in my life until being injected with a medication for depression, I wasn’t delusional or angry I was just depressed from having to quarantine for months away from home. Im not leaving anything out im neither bipolar or schizophrenic and now I have to take Vyvanse and trt for the rest of my life to fix the damages from risperidone and from sitting in pain. I’m thankful for getting messed up because now I’m going to medicate for ever which at this point I’m fine with. Modern medicine is both a blessing and a curse, I’d rather be medicated than deal with ptsd from my reaction to risperidone, some may think this is a dumb decision but it’s either I medicate or become seriously ill from the trauma. I tried running after surgery everyday and doing more naturally with nothing synthetic and it just wasn’t working out well, it was ok but I wasn’t going to get better without a crutch
I'm very much supportive of vaccines so long as they are helpful to the general population, which is why I'm not taking this 1. I'm not old, fat, or unhealthy... thanks for the chat though!
I'm sure you're healthy and all that. Even in the chance that you got covid you're mostly gonna be fine. But you will be posing risk towards others. Other people might not be as healthy as you are and if they got infected they might not be doing as well as you could. The vaccination is there not only to prevent people to get sick, but it also there to stop the spread of the virus.
@@tigerpanzer8220 Then why doesnt it stop the spread of the virus? Also youll have to quantify the risk im posing to others as an individual. Also other people are not my responsibility and I am not the responsibility of anyone else.
@@imdunes it does stop the spread of the virus by 60-90 % depends on what type of vaccine is being applied to the population. It doesn't instantly end the pandemic but it is way better than no vaccine at all You also need to take account for other people who are unable to get vaccinated due to their health condition such as having auto-immune diseases, cancer, etc or just simply not getting it because the distribution hasn't reach their place. I'm not gonna argue about whether you have responsiblity towards other people. but at the same time this kind of mindset is the reason why the pandemic doesn't stop because nobody cares about other people's wellbeing. For example some people doesn't bother to wear a mask because they don't care if other people gets infected by them. In turn other people don't care about you if you get infected from them. It's a neverending loop because people just doesn't bother to care about other people's lifes for a bit
I understand this girl wanting her mom to get vaccinated, but she's viewing it from the point of view that she is right and her mom is objectively wrong, so therefore her mom's mind must be changed. I don't think it's that black and white and this young woman should love and do her best to understand her mom's personal health choice in this matter instead of just trying to convince her otherwise.
@@jackcheung3200 If your vaccinated you still transmit the disease. Also no one is accounting for natural immunity which has been suggested through "scientific study" to be stronger than vaccination immunity. So once again you're assuming your correct and everyone else is wrong.
@@lanceroygames You know there's only one way to get natural immunity right? Saying that people should rely on natural immunity for protection the virus is ridiculous, since they had to get the virus with no protection in the first place to get that immunity.
My question is that why is "my body, my choice" not a valid argument. Surely if people can still spread the virus despite being vaccinated, then the risk of the family gettogether mostly falls on the unvaccinated. Surely the consequence should be the risk that covid has on the unvaccinated rather than the push towards shunning people from society. If there's a push towards normalising restricting social interactions and employment based on vaccination, doesn't this mean that the innocent are punished if there was ever a point in a future where a vaccine did have adverse effects since they weren't capable of making an informed decision? Never before were vaccines forced. With mandates being pushed, do we trust that there will never be a vaccine without severe side effects? It feels like there is a big potential for the current state of affairs to backfire even if not now, decades into the future. I also sympathise with all of these people who had a life threatening illness who couldn't afford the time in lockdown.
If you're not vaccinated the infection will more likely linger within you for longer, giving it a bigger window for potential mutations and thus increasing the chance of a new variant that can be more resistant to the current vaccines. So it's not just your body that's at play here, you're literally making it less safe for others. That's without even getting into transmission, which is a more nuanced topic (and I'm not up to date with it rn), but taking the vaccine could potentially decrease the spread as well. The side effect fear is just illogical too, the chances of getting and dying from covid are higher. It's like not going into an ambulance after a deadly wound because you're afraid of a car accident. Any unknown side effects have already proven to be too rare to be relevant by virtue of still being unknown. Theres no reason to believe in long term side effects either, there's nothing in them that could cause something like that. Certain vaccines are already mandatory for several things, so I also don't get the ethical predicament here, given that a lot of the same people refusing the vaccine don't care about the others. Literally all of the counter arguments if valid against the vaccine, would also be valid (more so even) against tons of other medicines that people use on the regular, yet this vaccine is singled out. Weird.
@@shadez123 Thanks, I appreciate the response. I find myself slightly on the hesitancy towards the vaccine, but not largely so. I don't interact with others so felt like it wasn't a big deal for me. Admittedly that is something I should probably change. My concerns are that the discussion is less about choice and compassion, but instead one that seems to be more politicised. One thing that has made me hesitant is that those pro-vaccine tend to be dehumanising when it comes to online discussion, so it's good to see a point of view that is more informative. Of course anti-vaxxers can similarly be hostile, but I assume most platforms are more likely to clean that up more. It does make me question the balance between human rights and protecting people. Ideally we should inform people and let them make the right decisions, but evidently things like obesity and drug abuse are still big issues despite all of the information that has been pushed. I guess that is why the mainstream has been focusing more on emotion, but it does feel manipulative. It feels like there's a choice between freedom and allowing dangerous ideas, and less respectful actions that can lower death rates. It doesn't sit right with me.
As someone who talks alot and doesn't seem to listen... it can be hard to notice yourself doing that. It can be easy to be like that, even if you want to listen. It doesn't always come from a bad place. Sometimes people have a lot of garbage in their thoughts to sift through. Sometimes people get caught in their struggle to precisely phrase their beliefs, whilst not trusting that you will understand unless you succeeded in precisely phrasing their beliefs. Combine the two points above. Delicious. Sometimes people have thoughts reacting to everything you say, and they forget not to express all of them so you have the chance to speak. Maybe the idea that they should do effort to make sure you have a chance to speak doesn't occur to them. Maybe they are stuck in a mindset that when you are trying to show them a different one. There is a difference between trying to see how the points of others are true within your perspective, or if it occurs to you that they might be describing a different one. And sometimes you think you understand someone based on the first sentence of their explanation, but you really just don't. All of this happens, and much more I'm sure. So anyways, what are your experiences as someone who encounters people that talk too much?
@ES Videos I mean, the existence of everything mandates it? If you were a physicist, you could continue your work while continuing to insist that quantum mechanics is made up, but you'd accomplish absolutely nothing. Or I guess as a non-physicist you could insist it's not real, but then you'd be forced to swear off pretty much all electronic devices like phones and computers at this point, since they're built with an intimate understanding of qm? All in all you just end up refusing to accept reality for no reason
@ES Videos that's such an "off" response. Like saying, "Nobody mandates the laws of physics." I mean you're right but it's still a thing whether you care to acknowledge it or not. Like that DW meme of her not being able to read so the rules written down don't apply to her. Basically you can't use ignorance as an excuse to ignore reality. I should say you can but be ready to suffer the consequences.
I’m vaxxed I’ll put that out there/ but a whole family that is vaxxed is worried about one person coming to the party that isn’t and they are the scared ones? Little weird
No vaccine is 100% effective, especially if the vaccinated are high risk. Just because seat belts are effective, it doesn't mean you should drive drunk or ride with a drunk driver if you can avoid it.
@@eiendeeai Analogy doesn't work because the virus has a 99.97% survival rate before the vaxx was ever mass produced. You're not dicing with death here. try again.
@@C-R-l-M-S-O-N I'm pretty sure the survival rate for getting the common cold is like 99%, would you share a drink with someone who is visibly sick with a cold? Probably not. Being sick sucks, even if you live. It's not fun and could ruin your week. Way before CV19 people were staying away from someone that had a decent likelyhood of making them sick. A lot of poeple don't even kiss their S/O when they are sick. Wanting to stay away from unvaccinated indoors at a party is pretty natural behavior, even if you are vaccinated, as a person you typically want to avoid the chance of something that could make you be in bed for a few days, even if you know that the vaccine will prevent you from dying.
@@EdreesesPieces just get a test to see if they are sick lol. it shouldn't matter if they are vaccinated or not. id literally pay for someone to give me covid at this point. give me that natural immunity please
This is exactly how I have convinced about a dozen friends already to not take the vax, and be against mandates. The dangers of compliance, history of tyranny, and current events in Australia
Many people have thoughts and behavior based on what they have experienced repeatedly. It does NOT all make sense in their minds. If it did all made sense then they could answer any relevant question about their views or behavior. Most people have several diffferent responses that they have seen other people (often their their parents) do. They compare the current situation with previous situations, decide which previous situation is the most similar, and then respond to the current siutation in the same way they responded to the previous situation. Then if that response does not work, they try another response.
The best way to learn something is by teaching it. Based on that: The best way to convince someone is to let them teach you their wrong take. While you make good questions, they will convince themselfs since we are our best teacher.
Y'know I feel like I'm halfway there. I'd understand people to not be resentful but, even though I felt it was a decent way to open communication with people that way, it always felt I still couldn't share that sentiment. And I can here it now, I was thinking, "I understand you and the way you came to your conclusions and won't judge you or hate you for being wrong." After this video, I can tell that what I was missing was actually omitting the "for being wrong" part. Time to test the waters :3
“not trying to convince someone is the best way of convincing people”
Sometimes just the confidence in your truth such that you don't need to convince others is enough for people to say "hey, maybe there is something to this I'm missing".
The only reason I refuse to take the vaccine is how ineffective it is, I suffer from extreme phobia of needles, I get nervous even thinking about them, I hate when they take my blood, and I would have to undergo it how many times, atleast 2, possibly 3? 4? or more times? Thats just beyond ridiculous. Unless the vaccine becomes 1 shot and done its just not happening for me, I overcome my fear and take it only to get forced to take it again half a year later, nah
@@Glade4 I used to deeply fear injections, but these covid vaccines barely hurt compared to the other boosters. The 2nd dose was legit the most painless shot I ever had in my entire life. Some med-workers are able to inject it fast enough, and you would barely notice if it went in or not. My advice is to look away/close your eyes and stay stationary, relax every part of your body to mitigate pain. A few hours after the shot, remove the bandaid to avoid skin-tugging aches. Thats how I did it.
@@Glade4 that’s pretty understandable honestly, but for me personally (although I don’t have a fear of needles) the shot itself never hurt either time. You don’t really feel it. The really crappy part is the immune response after your second shot (or first, depends on the case). That shit sucks
@@Glade4 hi, i understand where you're coming from. I'm also afraid of needles. I've fainted before, when they were taking blood. Usually the only thing you will feel is the needle through your skin, which feels like when you put your nails against your skin. What I did is I took my mom with me, because I couldn't trust myself not fainting. There were also first aid rooms and I requested to be vaccinated there, so I could lay down and so that there would be a professional nurse too. I don't know if that's possible where you live, but it really helped me. Of course the question is now, with all the new variants if it will be enough.
The first part was the key: match energy, probe for understanding, ask them to share everything first. People want to be understood and respected. Once you are both matched in energy and respect, the rest is keeping the levels balanced as you share your side.
Love this. I really started to learn how to do this after watching your interview with hafu. In it you said something similar: when you go into something trying to convince, you go in with an expectation of how the convo will go. Instead, go in with no expectation, focus on sharing your viewpoint, and be okay with whatever outcome. I found much more success once i started approaching disagreements with this method! Like you said, once you stop trying to convince, you can actually do better at “convincing”, because what it actually is is pooling your resources to arrive at a collaborative solution, which can happen to be yours if you were genuinely more educated about the issue in the first place, but might not be, which would also be good for u. Thanks for sharing as usual. You’re doing amazing work
I realized I've been doing this subconsciously during conversations with new people, and this explains why it's suddenly easier for me to make new friends. After some thinking I understand that this approach appeared after I lowered my expectations from people, like really lowered it, mostly because I've been dealing with people stuck-up in their own logic.
At some point I would just ask them to explain their standing in detail and then offer my side as a benefit/potential solution for a weakness in their logic, works most of the time. The other times it's a barrier of experience, some people can't believe that some things are possible, very hesitant, but somehow managed to convince them to try anyway by structuring the benefits to fit their logic.
The key to a conversation is not to convince or be convinced by someone, but for both parties to achieve a greater understanding of the topic.
Try to convince the audience/ anyone listening
I don't think so you're wrong
The sad thing is that this is rarer nowadays. People have been turned to be arrogant and their goal isn't understanding or communication, it's to be validated. For a healthier society would should teach people how to communicate and to feel validated even if others may have different views.
Yeah, but don't be surprised when an anti-vaxxer is horrible at listening and understanding since they typically lack good critical thinking abilities
@@joesussy3737 That goes both ways, though. The majority of people who are vaccinated are only vaccinated because of social pressure, not because they actually apply reason to the topic. Does that make them any more reliable on the subject than antivaxxers who are... Unvaccinated because of social pressure?
A lot of this applies to interpersonal communication in general. I have been having a lot of success in my relationship by actually NOT trying to argue my case when there is a conflict and just listen to what my partner's case is. Only after you fully listen to their side and "reflect" it back to them to prove you understand their point, you can then bring up your case and they are more likely to be understanding. This isn't just for romantic partners, it can be friends, coworkers, family, etc. I'm not perfect but I'm getting better at it and I can honestly see a lot of improvement in our communication.
Just watch out for your silence to become cimplicit in carelessness or indifference. I've had that happen to me. There are some people cannot please anyhow.
@@eax2010EA This is good advice, and to avoid that issue it's best to throw in little "okays" or "mhmm" and otherwise confirm what you're hearing with short noises. But remember it depends on context and what's being discussed. After a while of talking with reflective listening with someone they can pick up that you are listening based on your body language and vocalizations
Great perspective… the problem is that social media normally doesn’t allow this kinds of lengthy, thoughtful exchanges. And I think that’s the main cause of the polarization. Any tips, on how to make quick exchanges, or chats, more constructive?
The only tip I can give you is this: social media isn't meant to have this conversations.
The conversations get dumbed down because we try to adapt them to the format of twitter, facebook, youtube comments, etc. And when the time comes for us to seriously disscuss it, we gotta deal with all the tangly mess that we created and spread in the game of broken telephone that is the internet before we can even begin talking about the actual stuff.
This is the kind of stuff you've gotta deal with in the real world.
I would straight up say to people, "Hey I would love to have an in depth conversation about this, but this is not the platform for it. Let me know if you want to hop on discord." or something along those lines. The problem is when there's an audience people are going to feel tempted to play to the crowd, using cheap tactics to win applause or likes.
@@paperfart3988 exactly
The juicy gotcha one-liner showman punchline looks good, gets a crowd reaction and polarizes people, but it adds nothing of value to the conversation
This is why american presidential debates look more like a reality show circus every time
I think on Facebook you can have these longer convos. The only platform i think that though
@@paperfart3988 man that's so wise. The "playing to the crowd" mentality is really frustrating to deal with.
First rule of communication, if you won't listen to them they won't listen to you.
If anyone likes this I definitely suggest checking out Street Epistemology. People like Anthony Magnabosco or Reid from Cordial Curiosity are really doing some amazing stuff in terms of non confrontational conversation regarding beliefs
Good suggestions. I’d also recommend Destiny. He recently did an excellent job convincing a viewer’s father to get vaccinated.
@@gerunkwon2598 as much as I like Destiny, I wouldn't recommend him IN THIS VEIN. He has an amazing level of analytical skill in understanding and breaking down an argument in real time, and he's an excellent orator and honestly knows his stuff 99% of the time, and especially on this subject. But he's a debate guy, the result is that he is convincing, but that's not his aim, he's just looking for sound arguments.
And if you've watched him, you will agree that he's hard to watch at times. Not in an insufferable way, but he appeals to a very specific pallete if you will. I love his content, despite very vociferous disagreements I have on some of his takes, but he is NOT someone most people will enjoy watching, despite his top tier skill set.
@@Loengrinn You almost convinced me to stop watching him. Good job!
@@gerunkwon2598 I personally will disagree with and agree with Loengrinn. Destiny is a great debater and sometimes can be good at convincing others. I've just seen Destiny lose his cool too many times, granted, so did the other person. It's great for views, but in reality, I think Destiny's approach to convincing people is a horrible approach most of the time
I'm not sure what Dr. K is doing is directly comparable with Street epistemology, though... Much of those conversations is (even explicitly from the 'how tos') about avoiding conversations about evidence. They want to talk about doubt of evidence, but very rarely (from what I've seen) do they get into the actual reasons, and check out their legitimacy. They would normally rather set up some (hopefully) parallell case, and show that it's possible to doubt it.
What Dr. K. Here describes, while not being debate, would still be an open and honest conversation and would seem to benefit of discussing actual evidence for and against from each side. While SE becomes an interesting and explorative conversation, the premises of going into them seem to actually be opposite of what Dr. K suggests.
SE would be about exploring how to doubt something, going into the conversation assuming the person has not been skeptical enough on the positions he holds.
Dr. Ks method would be more of a conversation getting to a common understanding, and as he explicitly said, assuming that the person actually knows what he's talking about, and even is right. (Even though you may also think you are right, and then meet the others argument, and all)
While both can make great conversations, they seem to me like fundamentally different approaches. What do you think of this? Is it just that I don't understand either SE or Dr. K? Or is it something else I'm missing?
Ight bouta become the next president
He needs corporate backers first.
Gamer president
Dr. KPOTUS
you have my vote
Its a good advice but I would add one thing: Come in with the mindset that you MIGHT be wrong, because let's face it: None of us are all knowing.
Very true.
'When you know how to listen everybody is the guru'
Yea I wish Dr. K said this.
I'm not going to pretend to be more knowing than all the national health institutions that recommend the vaccine tho lol.
@@rll1236 No you don't need to be smarter, even a lot of scientists can still be wrong, not saying that they are!
Telling people to just take it because all the experts recommend just won't help. Especially if there is a FEW experts in the field that don't recommend it for whatever reasons.
This is great. I think it's crucial include that A. you can't control what others believe (this can be hard to accept) and B. maybe you're wrong or don't know- especially if it's regarding someone else's life.
Most people who think that people with a different opinion are *insert insult* , are the ones who truly don't understand the other person's perspective.
Because if you understand why someone thinks a certain way, they are no longer *insert insult* to you, because there is some form of logic (even if wrong) there.
Anyone who disagrees with me is obviously a *insert insult*
Dude you are total *insert insult* for calling me *insert insult*
I want to apologize 😔
Steelmanning the other's opinion is a good practice for snapping out of that frame of mind.
Said insult could be something somewhat independent of their rationality (e.g. dumb, dishonest, ignorant, weird, being a loser, etc.). Plus, it’s very common for people to have irrational and illogical beliefs and thought processes anyway.
What I find more irritating is when pseudointellectuals call your argument illogical but refuse to explain how they think it's illogical.
Hey Dr K I love that you put this up. I rarely engage in arguments and if I do I do it in this manner and the contrast was very clear back when I had a girlfriend who did debate. Her approach was trying to bully me into admitting "defeat" while I aimed to be constructive. One thing I want to ask though: in this video you are explaining this from the perspective of someone who is right, or at least more right than the other guy, so the objective is to convince them that they aren't foolproof and they still need to properly evaluate their reasoning in light of your questions and your ideas.
But could you also make a video about entering a conversation without taking an a priori assumption of being correct, making the goal to just fend off, placate, or convince the other party? In this case you are trying to enter a constructive argument where your goal is to "test" your story against his questions, and his goal is to test his story against yours, so that hopefully you both can learn something and whoever needs to adjust their opinion, even if it's you, can do so.
I'm also unsure if this is the best way to deal with non-trivial conflict because if the other party is headstrong, your willingness to concede can be fully exploited. That makes it so the guy who yelled more and was more confident (even if stupidly) in himself ultimately gets it his way.
You've had a video about communicating effectively, but I think that was aimed at the context of relationships, where an emphasis is being put on keeping emotions cool and letting the person feel they are being heard.
@Sasha Lemay Absolutely, none of this really works with people who are so far in that they believe something factually false is the absolute truth, I'd love to see a video of how to approach those conversations because it feels really hopeless
I don't think you took the essence of the video. I might be wrong but it sounds to me like he was not entering the conversation with a prior assumption that he was right. He did say no judgement, which probably means that from your perspective, neither of the differing stances should be seen as right or wrong.
You sound like you are talking about situations with more than two people, and are worried about looking wrong to the “audience”.
In these cases, (assuming your only goal is to look right) taking a headstrong approach, not conceding anything, and operating under the precedent that your opponent is wrong is the best idea. That is why that is taught and done in competitive debate.
I’m not sure exactly how to help you with your girlfriend situation, but I know I am the exact same way often, and I’m trying to stop being that way.
This is textbook "How to Win Friends and Influence People."
This really hits home with me. My boyfriend doesn't want to get vaccinated and I've already got mine. These exact conversations have happened with us and we actually defend each other's point of view to our peer groups. We've been asked 'how' we can stay together being on opposite ends of this really polarizing topic but like, that's just it. I've been unrightfully called a 'sheeple' by his unvaccinated friends and people naturally assume he's a conspiracy wacko from my friends. Its just untrue and quite rude tbh on both ends. He and I both have valid reasons for our choices, no one is an idiot, you've got to listen and ask questions.
This is the same situation with my and my gf. She got it, I don’t. We don’t even talk about it tbh, besides when I bring up the nonsense going around it and how it’s being used as a political tool. I don’t resent her for getting it, she had her reason and I respect it, same as she respects my reasoning for not wanting it. We both agree we would never go places that require the “vaccine” to enter, as well as we both agree that forcing people to get it is not the way to go. Let people make their decision, and everything will be ok. I would never tell anyone who gets it is wrong, hey you do what you wanna do, but I will never let anyone for e me into taking it. Also the whole thing about “take it so things can go back to normal” that’s not gonna happen, and also it sounds the same to me as “hey if you wanna be able to live, you gotta cut off your arm, because everyone else is doing it”, or some other ridiculous premise like that.
Have fun being infertile lol.
I love this, this is the way it should be imo
@@stoic521 why do you think that?
this is the same situation with my boyfriend and I. I agree with you on this Alanna.
I always said "If i can't argue for the thing I'm arguing against then i don't bother" meaning, i have to fully understand the thing I'm arguing against. If you fully understand it then you know its strengths and weaknesses
While this is true and good but doesn't work with irrational paranoid people.
People pick and choose strength and weaknesses tho. Then it becomes a battle of whose sources do we deem credible. Once the conversation reaches the point of judging whose sources are deemed acceptable or not; the true essence of tribalism rears it’s head and people divulge to whatever group they’re are most comfortable with in the beginning. Thus the dialogue is useless if the conversation ultimately boils down to a persons perspective on institutions on this planet.
And thats where it gets hard for me because this topic in particular is sooo convoluted with all its political implications and seemingly endless layers of constantly changing information you have to dig through to make the actual decision that at the end of it, no matter what you do, there is the uneasy feeling you haven't done enough research :/
And let's be honest no one really wants to bother themselves with all this in the first place....
There's a term for that called "Steel-manning" as in the opposite of straw-manning. The idea is to understand the best version of something you disagree with, and even strive to make it stronger than the way it was presented to you.
@@lawrencelord9777 thanks for taking the time to articulte that
My therapist spent about 15 minutes of our last appointment trying to convince me to vaccinate. Was definitely not the conversation I needed from him that day.
The thing people need to understand about many of us who are unvaccinated, is that it isn’t about conspiracy, distrust, or ill intent. The only thing I truly fear with the vaccine is unintended consequences or side effects. I am a healthy 25yo and see myself as low risk, and so I choose for myself to wait and see more data.
I love and respect everyone for their decision to vaccinate, nearly all my friends have it. All I ask is that you show some patience and try to see things from my POV before trying to start a debate. In the meantime, I will continue to wear masks, er on the side of caution when I have a tickle in my throat, and repeatedly quarantine if I have to.
Loved the video Dr. K. Keep up the good work
Asymptomatic covid is a thing my good sir
@@dhananjaymajumdar7853 *woosh*
‘Because one has nothing to prove, people can trust his words’ ---- Lao Tzu
This is such an advanced way of doing a conversation, great stuff, filled with humility at every point on the way
I'm not an anti-vaxxer, I'm actually vaccinated. But I totally understand why some people might not want to get vaccinated, It requires a big amount of faith in the government that it was tested properly and that the vaccine is actually a vaccine, that the doctor washes their hands properly etc. So I don't think they are 'wrong' necessarily.
Thing is those people don't maintain that sort of criticism with the FDA or other government organizations. Our entire life is based on trust of other people doing their shit right. Are you going to buy food from the store? How do you know it was handled properly? You don't. They don't.
This issue is political and religious at this point. They are fixated on this because it was politicized and it scares them.
You could just ask your family doctor or whoever you usually consult with on medical matters...
It has nothing to do with the government
@@bobobsen Watch the video again, and see how I would get mad at you straight away ;p
@@bobobsen thanks for the joke. I had a good laugh.
Dr k is just an amazing mentor for learning psychology; he may teach more people in the future by his videos alone.
This is very interesting insight. I appreciate it very much. I've tried to do similar things in conversations with a family member in my life (Not about Vax issues, this person claims that decisions I have made for myself that have been very good for me have hurt them for reasons that I don't understand.) The only huge issue that I've run into is that when I ask "Can you explain this to me?" I get met with anger because according to them, "You're smarter than that. You shouldn't have to ask." I've tried to continue to genuinely ask, but then the family member will change the subject or walk away from the conversation.
I’m having a similar issue. Did you try the matching their emotional energy and then apologizing technique?
I'm thinking it's one of a few issues: they are embarrassed/ashamed of the reason even though they choose to believe it, they don't know the reason themselves, or they know the reason but can't explain it well and so display anger as an outward expression of their inability to explain. If it's the first one, try to meet them on that level and/or praise them a bit--e.g., show that you are ashamed of not knowing the reason (e.g., "I know I should be smarter than that, but I really can't figure it out--it's embarrassing that I don't get the reason, and can you please help me"). If it's the last one, maybe try to ask them to explain parts of it at a time, hopefully making it easier for them.
Let it go. Their problem. Walk away
@ES Videos Can you explain?
@ES Videos Well, if you have two people with very different versions of reality, I think these techniques are applicable. What I'm just pointing out is that it's hard to proceed with a strategy like this if the other person finds the idea of you disagreeing, questioning, or not understanding them as insulting. I don't think it's the issue at hand that renders these communication methods useful or useless, but the mindset of the people involved.
what I feel is missing, or I'm not understanding is 'what if the premise is wrong?"
Regardless how influential you are at convincing another party to side with you, if your premise is flawed from the beginning, then are you actually listening to their point of view? or feigning knowledge until they join you?
Complicated subjects are never black and white. This is the problem with trying to hive mind a planet on any subject. What works for some, will be counterintuitive for others.
Even if your techniques are well intentioned, this starts with the arrogance that 'my side will be correct if I just lead them to think like me."
That aside, will grant it could be good for letting those hard locked in their biases to open up and consider alternative views better without their pride flaring up. But still if you use this technique, it's pretty manipulative.
It’s literally war
You can convince anyone of anything provided you’re skilled enough in persuasion and emoting
It’s one of the deepest and scariest rabbit holes out there
@@overworlddiplomat7162 so just your average salesman then?
@@KinnetMontana or just your average person leaning into narcissism.
its a choice of mindset between war/hate/ego and collaboration/cooperation/understanding when your creating your world view
It's all war! Sounds like you had a crap life and haven't cleaned yourself up yet
though it sounds manipulative, i think dr. k made clear that u shouldn't start the conversation to persuade them. if you're genuinely confident about your opinion or arguments you might be sure ull end up convincing them (which sounds manipulative but i only consider it a prediction). and if u end up falling short on arguments and you genuinely didn't start the discussion to convince, you'll be fine with it. it doesn't mean you're necessarily wrong, maybe u just lack research. at least that's what i got from it as a really argumentative person.
and the mirroring technique sounded manipulative as well, but i don't think we should stigmatize it, i think it's just a social interaction technique that will help in case of a discussion. if it doesn't work you'll have to be fine with it as well i guess
Either way, one of you will learn something new
Seems like I'm going to stop doing what I was doing and watch this instead
:D
1) Proving someone else wrong is a terrible way to convince them you're right. Forget Debating.
2) Let go of Judgment and treat them w/ respect - go in assuming they are right and do your best to understand them. Use "Emotional Mirroring", match the emotional level then take a step back and reduce it.
3) Don't try to convince them they're wrong, try instead to understand the process of how they got to that conclusion. *don't pounce on the weaknesses of their arguments; don't attack and instead express confusion.
4) Once you've understood, repeat back their argument then ask for permission to share your point of view.
-Address points of view that you don't agree with in a non-judgmental way.
-Concede to their points when you can but hold your own.
-Then ask if they're willing to consider your PoV.
- Ask for their opinion to what you believe and let them be the final judge.
5) Once they make that final judgment; lay your boundary (Convincing people takes time and normally can't be done in one session)
I was having a particularly prickly conversation with a guy at my job. All I did was express my concerns about the vaccine. Afterwards the guy instantly lumped me in to an anti-vaxxer box even though I'm vaccinated. Afterwards all he said was I was wrong and that I need to look into the science. It was extremely hard to want to continue a conversation with this guy.
There are idiots in both camps. The problem is, idiots shout the loudest, and also the dumbest, making both camps look stupid.
I’m vaccinated as well, but what bothers me is that you cant even raise some concerns about the vaccine without being called some name
What concerns with the vaccine?
@@MetalMachine93 well there are some valid concerns about the vaccine being rushed. Like how they were able to be developed in a year. I was skeptical at first so I googled it. I'm not going to claim it was "research" and "free-thinking" like antivaxxers commonly do. Turns out a vaccine can be developed a lot quicker when you don't have to start from zero and all scientists are willing to collaborate. COVID-19's a coronavirus after all. It aligned with what I was taught, what I have experienced, and what the people I trust believed and that's honestly enough to convince me. So I got vaxxed
I'm not vaccinated and don't plan on doing so, but I also advocate that most American's should get it because most Americans have some kind of co-morbidity that puts them at greater risk for Covid complications, i.e. obesity or diabetes. As a healthy, fit 21 year old, I don't consider myself at risk enough to warrant getting the vaccine, and I always assumed that was my choice to make. What happens though is no matter how hard you explain yourself, most people are always looking for ways to think they're better than other people. They think they're doing some great altruistic duty by getting this vaccine, when scientifically, all they're doing is lowering their own risk of complications or hospitalization. Neither side on the extremes actually cares about the science, they'll pick the facts that support their worldview and discard the ones that don't.
Still not getting it. Talk until you're blue. Haha.
I decide when I'm damn good and ready. No one else gets to decide.
Watch the full video you buffoon the title was made to reel you in the video
@@beansntoastyt2616 okay, twit, (emotional mirroring there), way to assume I *didn't* watch it.
Love it. I don't take either side, but what rings true is the adage "seek first to understand, and then be understood". It's always good to have a discussion instead of a debate, ideally without a lot of emotion or ad hominem. 🙌
"Concede their points while holding your own" is perhaps the most important piece of this process.
The best way to change someone's perspective is to do so from a position where you understand theirs.
I just respect the choices of others and expect that they respect mine. In general, this is not about vaccines per se. Live and let live. A society that forces one way of thinking, acting or living upon everyone is pathological. I don’t know any „anti-vaxxers”, but I do know a great deal of people who haven’t received every single vaccine there is on the market, because they don’t know about them, don’t care about them or just don’t feel the need for it. I also know a lot of people who haven’t received a Covid-vaccine, for various reasons. None of them are actual anti-vaxxers. A lot of them however strongly oppose the way this topic is handled politically, they oppose a discourse of surrendering individual sovereignty. They oppose a society that makes basic rights dependent on any attributes, because their belief is that we all are entitled to our rights without having to qualify for that in any way. I share their opinion. Always have. In every political debate. Vaccine policies are no exception.
Amen.
Dr. K needs to address the system forcing their view, which is not what he says works. So they need to knock that shit off.
I think those that haven't got the vaccine are generally hesitant due to potential side effects and how early it was pushed out. Rate now, it reasonable to say yes but their is still the potential for long term side effect down the line. If your healthy and young, I think natural immunity is the way to go.
Thank you, I breath a sigh of relief reading this. You get it. This is what it's about, ultimately. This one way or the highway mindset leads to tyranny. The Hippocratic Oath, Nuremburg Code and the constitution exist for a reason. There are way too many politics involved with these vaccines at the end of the day. *Nobody* should have this much power over what goes into people's bodies and the fact so many people are readily willing to treat unvaccinated as second-class citizens for questioning the mainstream dogma is alarming.
@@freds6187 lol right now my number one reason for not taking the vax is the authoritarian drive to make me do it.
I probably wouldnt get it anyway as im young and dont have any major health problems but thats still the number one reason.
@@irislilly7515 I mean, sure, there's a certain authoritarian hand involved, depending on the country you're in, with the way the covid-vaccine situation is handled. But in the end, you can equate A LOT OF things with authoritarianism with this kind of rationale. "WHAT? I need to have a PASSPORT to not be a second class citizen?!!! WHAT...? I need to have my child get a doctors note regarding his health check so he can go to school?" "My child needs to attend school, or else there will be child services involved?" "I didnt' wear a seatbelt and the cops stopped me and fined me?" Tyranny!
I mean, don't you think labelling it as a gateway to tyranny is a bit of a stretch? Many countries in the west follow democratic principles. Politicians are not some mythical beasts that appear out of nowhere - they're the same people elected by you, me or the other average joe. They have similar daily concerns and have families and experience much of the same life we do. Just that they hold more power (collectively).
Why do you see people who are not vaccinated as being treated as second class citizens? I'm just curious because, to me, these types of analogies feel a bit disingenuous, as there has been real and very scary implications where people WERE actually deemed and treated as such, and most of the times it lead to extreme oppression. How are you being oppressed in this sense?
To equate the experiences of those people to you requiring to provide certain proof (whether vaccination or a covid test or immunization via having been sick with covid) in order to attend places of mass gathering to avoid unnecessary risks is, IMO, demeaning to actual victims of actual tyranny.
I am just curious to hear your POV, because while I agree that governments are pushing the limit of their power in order to deal with the covid pandemic, I feel like people fear monger far too much and while I am willing to listen and may even agree with some points, I just instantly lose the will to talk about these things once people start bringing up the holocaust or similar topics to equate this situation to "tyranny". It just seems wrong to me and disrespectful.
I'm not generally anti-vax. But the bullying, harassment, persecution, judgment, shaming, etc. coming from people who were supportive of the covid vaccine from the get-go is a huge reason why I refused to get it so long. Instead of judging, shaming, and bullying people for not doing what you want them to do, try to see where they are coming from.
"Seek first to understand, then be understood." - Stephen Covey
Bullying and shaming and judgement etc. Is wrong, of course. People love to get on their moral high horses whenever they have the chance (look at organized religion and its followers) but in the end, I feel like certain anti-vaxxer groups are calling for it. When you start to parade and use arguments that you're going to be "holocausted" because you're not getting the jab, IMO you deserve a bit of a roast, because you're really disrespecting actual victims of real and scary tyranny.
@MarkSoFocused aight, im barely middle-IQ. Can you tell me what unpopular independent thoughts I should follow instead? You seem to be in the higher tier IQ bracket.
@MarkSoFocused There is literally a book called: "The Bell Curve Debate" because of harsh and various critiques on the book itself. It seems to not be the most clean book ever written. What is your opinion on that?
I've been putting it off until I formally move where I am currently living, and get a family doctor that I can ask regarding my concerns and to help identify my personal risk-benefit profile regarding taking the vac. Unfortunately, there is a regulatory body here that has threatened doctors for steering from the vaccine-extremism narrative in talking to patients, and giving their honest opinion about what's best for the individual patient they're talking to. Isn't that f'ed up? I won't be coerced into a medical procedure with serious side effects (for SOME people, i know, not most) and other controversies floating around, without informed consent and personalized medical consultation. And they block that...
@@SnakeHelah It's easy to point a finger at a specific group and accuse them of being on their moral high horses. But the truth is, all groups can be guilty of that, not just organized religion. Just look at the sheer amount of virtue signaling that many younger people do in order to get likes and views.
As for the Holocaust point, you are coming at it from a judgmental point of view. Have you really spent the time to ask "why might people be comparing this to the Holocaust?" People aren't saying that this is the same as the holocaust; people are drawing comparisons between what is happening now and what happened leading up to the Holocaust that set the stage for it to happen (media propoganda and manipulation of communicated data, division of people into us vs them, telling the people that "those people" are dangerous to everyone else and need to be stopped, etc). Various governments have even suggested the idea of having camps for unvaccinated people. This is all stuff that happened back then. Will it result in the same outcome? Who knows.
It's really easy to dismiss tyranny when it's building up, and tyranny looks very different whenever it shows up. But tyranny doesn't become obvious until AFTER it has already taken over. Look up the boiling frog analogy; tyranny works the same way.
This guy is closest to legends we have on this planet I'm sure there's others but this guy I feel inspired helps me get better thankyou doctor k!.
Lol. Half the commenters would feel they have righteous cause to arrest and intern the other half of commenters into a camp in order to deprogram them. For their own good, for their own safety, simply because their patience is wearing thin. Be it your family, neighbors, co-workers. I can only laugh at how terrifying all this is.
edit: words
Yea people are like, "let's calmly and rationally talk about this, but also, if you don't agree with the official goverment narrative, I'll let them use force against you and help out too."
@@warrensanders751 Problem is, government has nothing to do with it. It's mainstream scientific narrative. Why some people choose to agree with oddball lab coat wearing wackjobs instead is the weirdest thing.
@@warrensanders751 And when the government comes to do what goverments HAVE ALWAYS DONE. These same people will at best think, "I tried to tell them," or at worst, "Good, they deserve it." Or most damning, "I'm sure the goverment won't do anything bad to them" -- Read all the comments and you can figure out which person is which.
QAnon does have all signs of a destructive cult, though. Every cult and deprogramming expert out there says it. It's understandable people want to deprogram their parents. Not that it's easy or sometimes even doable.
People: Talking
Limemill: Brings up QAnon
Hopefully everyone, but not: Take your strawman and BEGONE
What an absolutely insightful video
Be respectful and don't act like you're correct and the other person is an idiot. I wish more people did this.
This video helped me with the conversation I just had which was happening while I was watching the video. haha Thanks Dr. K, always appreaciate your insight and wisdom!
I've got to ask. Why are we using the word "Anti-Vaxxer" here? If someone doesn't like apple pie does that make them Anti-Pie? This word choice just isn't accurate at all.
It's to highlight the egoism going on in the subconscious of these people. I think narcissism exists on a spectrum and this language leans heavy into covert narc vibes
cause it's a term to describe people who're against vaccines. anti=against, vaxx=vaccine. if I'm genuinely against apple pie you could call be an anti-applepier i guess.
not liking ≠ being against
I don't like pickles and you can absolutely call me anti-pickle. This is so easy lol
not wanting to take one specific vaccine doesn't make you anti-vaccine , thats like saying '' Oh he hates Juan therefore he hates all mexicans '' its literally a broad generalization to discredit the person's opinion.
The answer simplified is "to create the mentality of us vs them; the other".
Long version:
This use of language has been going on for years and the point of it is to separate people in to different groups so it's easier for a person to be manipulated to hate all of the group. It doesn't matter what the individual thinks, if they have a certain label and that label has been primed to have negative connotations to it, the other group will react emotionally first. By reacting emotionally will suppress the logic parts of your brain.
Why only have Democrats and Republicans?
Why do we have White and PoC?
Vaxx and anti-vaxx?
College educated and uneducated?
Straight and queer?
Rich and poor?
etc etc
It's all to divide people into neat little boxes and make them hate each other because if people stopped reacting emotionally to labels that doesn't matter, they'd find commonality. And that commonality allows for critical thinking and open-mindedness.
Thank you for sharing your method of convincing others. I can see that this method would be effective in disarming a holder of an opposing viewpoint by first responding with mirrored energy, then apologizing if it's combative by offering an excuse (e.g., "I'm sorry if I sounded snappy; I've had a bad day," etc.), inviting them to express their position in greater detail, listening, asking for their permission to express the reasons for yours (prefaced by pointing out the points they maintain that you deem possibly understandable to hold), express your viewpoint and finally communicate your boundaries re what you will hold to.
As someone who will not take the jab, although I would appreciate this non-dismissive approach, it would not work at all to convince me...at all. It is not a means to elicit genuine discourse with an open mind and respect for another's viewpoint. Rather, it's manipulation and assuming the other person is wrong from the jump. Sometimes we are actually wrong and do well to listen with a truly open mind.
Dr K forgot to mention clozapine's most important SE: immunosuppresion d/t decreased WBC. Kinda surprised he didn't mention that, but thats so important to know
I would think that would be important
The best thing I ever convinced my parents to do is as convincing them to stop watching the news, it’s not even a vaccine thing but the amount of stress they were under being told that the world was ending and they are gonna die every day was causing them to believe things they never would have in the past. My parents were conservative for sure, but they had gone from moderate to die hard trumpers in just a few years, needless to say after giving up the news. A few months later and my mom is saying this is the best she’s felt in years and she even got the vaccine that she said she would never get
Congrats, that's awesome!
I think that's a great way to convince someone: to assume a position of genuine interest and be willing to listen and share your point of view. But it kinda bothers me that, in the other hand, you're considering that the other side is being unreasonable and you need to enlightening it. I totally agree with the first part, and if someone change their mind in the process, great! but if you're pretending to be willing to listen and understand the other person's point of view, don't start the conversation thinking about how you need to show how wrong the other side are... it would sound fake and that's really easy to perceive
@Sasha Lemay Agreed. Take a close look at the chat rolling past. The chat knows what is up. At some point there are a ton of people going 'wait, this can go the other way'.
Of course it can go the other way. The truth is not yours to control, it is yours to understand.
Any powerful technique to make people see the light is either offputtingly obviously manipulative or an honest exploration of issue. And then one always runs the risk of seeing the light themselves,.... as they should.
This is less a method to convince people and more a way to facilitate understanding of perspective.
This video rightfully points out that if someone perceives you as trying to convince them, it won't work. Absolutely agree. But the suggestion then seems to be to try to fake having an honest conversation. The implication still seems to be that you know you're right and they are wrong and you still want to change them. I would suggest that an even better approach is to give up trying to convince them at all. Have an honest conversation where you both try to understand each other and figure out where you differ. That will probably help with understanding each others' boundaries. But you absolutely should not go into it expecting them to change, even slowly. Maybe they are actually right and you are the one that ought to change? An honest conversation is best!
When you are a doctor and are speaking to unstable people from the underworld, I can see the need to protect yourself, to fake it, and not have an honest conversation, as getting dragged into the underworld is not an option you are willing to consider. But when dealing with your family and peers, I would rather assume they are decent people, not all that different from you, worthy of respect, and be willing to open myself up to consider their position.
i would happily do an interview about why i wouldnt like to get a vaccine and being open to the information that someone feels like i am missing
ok, antiscience m0ron
At this point is tribal , I've noticed 80 of the people on both sides don't really understand the research
If you show your real power levels HealthyGamerGG's account will be nuked from TH-cam lol.
Truth is not allowed here.
ive smoked pot since 12 years old and i have enough common sense to go get my vaccine today.
Yeah, good luck with that interview. I'm sure the video will last about 30 min before it gets censored and taken down by TH-cam while Alok gets a strike on his channel. The always tolerant left, you see
I love this circle back to Jimmy from Philly
That was an epic call
I'm gonna turn all my friends into weebs and make them watch anime
Yeah they should watch One Piece. It's a huge time commitment, but the storylines are incredible.
You monster!
Cringe
@@πατριχορ LOL So tell me why having Belle Delphine as your pfp isn't cringe and anime is
Yess then get them into VrChat and now you have cute cuddle buddies in the form of Animay gorls♡
he mentions swallowing reflex -> i notice myself swallowing
It is important to remember that that approach only really works when you are "right" - it is much more difficult to convince people of something that is not true
You mean its harder when you are left?
I would assume that it could be productive for the one using this technique while they are wrong because a respectful conversation benefits both "parties". This because it might turn out that the person that is wrong might be convinced. While you'd generally want the opposing person to see your point, it causes you to see their point and, aside from the title of the video, I think that both participants of the conversation could benefit/learn from this technique. Not the at the beginning desired result, yet satisfying.
What if You are down under like our Aussie bros?
Why would you want to convince anyone if you're not right? Surely if you're not right you'd want THEM to convince YOU ???
I feel that if you've genuinely approached someone and tried to understand them, you'd be fine with "being wrong" and walking away from the conversation having learnt from the other party, so it's a great way to approach any conversation, regardless of where you stand.
It made me smile cos that’s exactly what I do naturally….. Now I understand what I always felt but never understood- it’s powerful. And it’s exactly intended to not be. I mean, I never use it to convince ppl. Just understand, get to know them + I offer my views so they can get to know me.
debate is a better tool for forming and testing your own ideas than it is for convincing someone else of anything
This is something I was so unbelievably blessed to realize in my very early 20's.
All I know is that destiny got destroyed in this debate
I can understand people getting misinformed on the internet. Cuz I remember my younger self believing everything on facebook.... yes, everything.
Finally my path toward being a sociopath begins
you don’t convince people, you give them your opinions and respect if their opinions are different from yours.
But what if their opinion is based on knowing less than you do, and you want to open their eyes?
Thats great but the other person has an effect on your life.
Im all with you, which is why im against vaccine mandates. People should be able to make their own decisions.
But people who believe in vaccine mandates will claim that they have the right to tell other people what to believe and do as it has an effect on their lives.
@@pseudonymous8702 "open their eyes" 😂 The long term effects of the vaccine can only be measured after sufficient time has passed.
Only this reason is enough to not get vaccinated *for me* , aspecially when it doesn't give immunity it just "reduces the likelyhood of death" that being already incredibly low.
@@unknownentity8256 the vaccine greatly reduces the likelihood of serious ailment and lasting effects, if you do contract the disease.
As for long term effects, do you apply the same scrutiny to everything? Do you live in an electro-shielded box, away from cellphones, WiFi, wireless earbuds, and 5G? All of this tech is relatively new and emits some form of radiation, you can imagine any long term effects you want but you probably don't.
@@spencechan he doesn't have to apply the same scrutiny to everything. he is free to draw the line where he sees fit.
this is not about consistency for many. it is about freedom. I get to make the choice of what I eat and what vaccines I take (if any).
I found things with the letter that worried me. Do you think not taking a vaccine is a reason to ostracize and talk down to a family member?
Talking down to a family member? No. Ostracize? Yes, if the person wants to put other family members health & safety at risk, which they are inherently doing by not taking the proper measures. In the post, they outline the fact that she is more right-wing, and through presumption only, we can assume this means she’s anti-vax, anti-mask and anti-mandate.
I can also presume that their family gatherings will involve a lot of elderly individuals who are at a much higher risk of being hospitalized or dying from covid. This is especially true when they are infected with more severe variants, sometimes regardless of vaccination status.
With or without this hypothetical context, I believe people should have a right to keep themselves safe just as much as I believe people should have the right to not get vaccinated.
You dont see people against this vaccine ostracize family members who get abortions but you do see it the other way around. Says a lot.
@@Hannahtehbanana The letter said everyone else is vaccinated. I do not think the family is healthy (mentally) to begin with if this grew to such a large issue.
The part where somebody sent an email to EVERYONE telling them they are invited unless they are not vaccinated but OP's mother is the only person not vaccinated and that was common knowledge. How is it not mean spirited?
Just do not message her if she is uninvited. Who the fuck does that if not enemies?
Nobody is risking their life by meeting her, again they are vaccinated, all of them according to OP.
@@Hannahtehbanana The vaccine is less effective than anti-bodies (especially w/ variants). If any if them cared about safety they would just have the OP's mother take an antibody test and a covid test before coming. I doubt anyone in that family cares about actual safety enough to be informed, just the virtue signal.
@@Hannahtehbanana You're drinking the Kool-aid yourself based on this comment. This is a vaccine that is proven to not limit the spread or chance of infection in relation to covid, it simply lowers your chances of hospitalization or death. It is entirely a personal decision, because it comes down to deciding if you think you're at enough of a risk to want to get the vaccine and lower it. It has no effect on the outcome of others, however that would go against the narrative of shaming those who don't get it as selfish and unempathetic.
You could use this the other way around too. How to convince vaxxers to become non-vaxxers :)
Very simple. Have them ask why you cannot sue the pharmaceutical company for severe reactions to the vaccine.
Not really but that's a different topic.
There is such thing as truth right? Anti vaxers may not be “stupid”. But they certainly dont have beliefs that line up with reality. In order for them to change you, they not only have to do the emotional work to listen. But they also need to do the same thing if asking about the confusing parts. If you’re not confused. How can they really sway you?
@@zanard33 My impression is that vaxxers don't think it's too big of a deal that pharma companies are 100% immune for any bodily harm their products cause. Their argument being "the benefits outweigh the cons", or "the chances of side effects are so low". For someone who has had side effects to vaxxes, that kind of argumentation is just not going to work.
@@Acnologia That actually was my initial contention before getting the vaccine. Why are these multinationals getting the protection they already have with their guaranteed profits? If they really were so sure about the efficacy of their product, then they'd lay it all out in the open just like any product would.
well I have been through covid19 and was able to kick it myself at home. Got natural immunization without any meds or vaccine. Now all my friends, neighbors, family etc. pressuring me "get vaccinated get vaccinated"...I am exhausted to explain that I have immunity, natural immunity which is better than ANY vaccine so I am good but they just won't quit.
just say you have been naturally
@@lambchu6459 i would tell anyone who's had covid already not to worry about re-infection. there's some data showing acquired immunity is really effective. just wait and see how you go. don't feel like you have to bow to social pressure, especially when you have a good reason.
@@lambchu6459 I suspect you don't have the medical expertise to make such inferences by yourself...
@@spencechan appeal to authority fallacy. it would take the average person a couple hours to take a look at statistics to make a conclusion for themselves.
Stay strong, and good for you for being informed. Most of these people don't put in the time or effort to look into this stuff and take the culture of fear at face value.
12:05 I just started smiling just by thinking about walking in a room where everyone is laughing.
yeah!! same lolll
This is great information!
Emotional Mirror: Get on the emotional level of the other person and then apologize and decrease your emotional level. -Let go of judgment and treat them with respect
Forget about data, dont judge
Understand their viewpoint and ask for explanations
Ask for giving your point of view and feedback
Lay out your final boundary understanably threw the others lens
This information in this video is gold. Nailed every point.
I think that it's going to be very easy to see this as condescending
A key point here is that this is with direct (at least audio) and live communication.
This will not work via text or delayed audio.... i.e. most of social media is a horrible venue for this.
Sometimes the ones who want to change others need to actually change themselves because they are the ones in the wrong.
Most often that is the case. The description of this video is a fancy way of saying “How to propagandize people”.
and then sometimes thats not the fucking case
@@robbiesarris9072 Do you piss in your own cereal, or do you have someone on stand by to piss in it for you every morning?
I literally did this with my ex 1000 times. When she had a bad day, she would make up an argument, and I was like “wtf is going on?”
I started pretending to be mad at her back, and stop, and she instantly calmed down. It was magical.
Manipulation series? 🤔 just saying 👀
It'd be interesting to see doctor K's take on manipulative techniques. This one video laid out a primary example from the book "presuision" on not only using reciprocity to get someone to willingly understand your point of view but also asking them to evaluate their new opinions to make lasting change in their views.
Manipulation is not the right word because of its connotations. There is nothing inherently dishonest about managing your interactions more intelligently.
@@MorganMindfulness I don't think this is manipulation. Just because it works better doesn't automatically mean u "manipulate" anyone. Maybe you could consider it dishonest to hold back your strong opinions on the topic but imo it works better if u learn to have less strong opinions on it anyway. So maybe you should GENUINELY respect their view and try to understand then there is really nothing manipulative about it I think.
@@pseudonymous8702 There's nothing dishonest about pretending to be upset with someone and then offering a false apology in a ploy to win them over? Do you want to rethink that?
@@smallerthanlife7664 I think it's more like allowing yourself to be upset than pretending
When I'm talking to clients about their desire to break some stigma that may be affecting them within relationships I think it's really important to understand that we cannot change people's minds in 1 conversation. We have become so acclimatized to instant or near instant gratification that often we forget that fundamental change takes time. The only thing I would add to this
goodness, we will never know...
From reading the comments here I think I can safely say Dr k missed a step that should have been explicitly said out loud.
Guys after you have sought to understand the other person's point of view, don't immediately ask to share your opinion. Take a minute and re evaluate your own position.
Do you still think you are correct? Are you some wise shaman at the top of a mountain who knows all or is there a chance that you are the one who is mistaken?
This person who asked the question has made no allowance that he might not understand his mother's concerns about the vaccine or even if she is being ostracised unfairly. Have they had a conversation about what the actually risks are? Does he really care about her concerns? Is his mother being paranoid? Who knows! This is a big problem in the vaccine debate, everyone thinks they know the other sides argument when they really aren't listening to what they actually say (I won't say which side I'm on because that's besides the point).
The point is this, at the end of the day, there is no point trying to understand the other person's point of view if you are not willing to change your own IF you find out some new information that YOU didn't know.
Don't assume you know everything.
So much this!!
It takes decades to make an actual vaccine. This is not a vaccine but a rna gene therapy which didnt even pass the first 2 trials on animals.
Did you honestly try to review your own opinion?
Exactly.
antipsychotics in general suck, physically and psychologically
I think starting with not calling them Anti-Vaxxers would be ideal. Somebody with naturally acquired immunity from previous covid-19 infection has very good reason to avoid taking a vaccine, the idea of starting out by addressing them as anti-vax means you are putting them in a box of presuppositions and assumptions which they will likely resent.
Sneakily changing the definition of “anti-vaxxer” is being done on purpose.
@@GothVibeWars By whom? From what? To what? For what purpose? Why would they? What makes you think that? Why should I believe you? What did you even try to say with this comment? How does it make sense as a reply to TheAnalyticalFailure? What should I do with this information?
The comment has enough to make people feel uncomfortable, but not enough to actually explain what you are talking about. There is a claim, but there is no case.
@@nielskorpel8860 i think they were just talking about the stigma around anti vax
I knew all this but hearing you put into words makes it much clearer now
Notice you did not mention permanent tremors as a side effect which is horrible
I actually know multiple people who've had some pretty serious side effects.
Exactly. Don't take it
Where did you hear this? I've not seen that mentioned anywhere as a long term side effect.
@@WaterCat5 That's to be expected. Fact checkers and algorithms have been employed to remove anything they don't want people to see.
In other words, whenever information or videos on this topic pops up it will be taken down within 24 hours if it's presenting anything that makes you question what they want you to believe.
@@shmeegol I guess I'm confused why they would acknowledge there are side effects (rare blood clots, mild cardio myopathy, and so on), but would hide info on a more serious, easier to identify problem. What's the point?
imagine if both the son and the mother are watching this video ,trying to convince one another
So.....you're saying the protected need to be protected from the unprotected by forcing them to use the same protection that doesn't protect the protected???? Cause if so, that's some bullshit.....
I don't think you understand that the virus constantly mutates, and if too many people are unvaccinated, which allows it to reproduce a lot more, it eventually yields stronger strains that could be harder to deal with. That's how the Delta strain came to be, originating from India where there were plenty of unvaccinated people (it's enormously populated after all).
@@Vegan_Kebab_In_My_Hand sorry, I don't agree. Polio didn't mutate, neither did Small Pox, Tuberculosis, etc. The protection is for YOU, not me! If you're protected, you shouldn't worry what others do. The only people I know that have gotten the 'Delta Variant' were those fully vaccinated. I was around these people, took ZERO precautions, and was completely fine. I do NOT wear a face diaper either. 95% of the population of Israel is vaccinated and their COVID death rates continue to climb. The truth is, this vaccine makes you more suspectable to getting COVID, not less! The efficacy rate is 30% for this 'experimental injection,' with zero long term studies (as the 'Good doctor pointed out)....I'll pass. My body, my choice, and this time it actually applies because I'm only talking about MY body, not a baby's.
@@katet9839 you do realise it's genetically related SARS, right? There's already a few variants of Covid, this is not speculative, this is actually happening. Everytime a virus reproduces, there's some error in the replication (mutation).
Over 6 billion people have been vaccinated globally by now, if there were any major issues, it would've been obvious by now.
@@Vegan_Kebab_In_My_Hand my opinion is this, you WILL get COVID. Natural immunity has been shown to be 7 times more effective than this experimental injection. This illness has a survival rate of 99.6%, and if that scares the shit out of you.......stop eating garbage, processed food, protect your own immune system (as I do mine), and grow a spine. I have a degree in History, and though I didn't live through said times, I've studied them. When people are walking in the streets with wheelbarrows saying, "Bring out your dead!" I'll be worried😂 Until then, I'm going to live my life, as you should do too! Don't effect me, and I won't effect you, but don't come at me with that, "you unvaccinated people are spreading COVID" shit. That shits ridiculous.
Why don´t you talk about big pharma´s shady practices? Oh that´s right.. you haven´t got the balls to do that. Easier to pick on "anti-vaxxers", why don´t you get Steven Kirsch or Robert Kennedy on the show and debate them on vaccines? Do it and show us your persuasion skills firsthand.
@card Very well said !
Still not gonna get the jab though
I've always said this and it continues to be true.
Most people who say they're "open-minded" are only open-minded in so far as it fits within their range of beliefs. Once they encounter someone who sits too far out of that range, then their ability to be "open-minded" usually disappears and is replaced with judgment and content
Well yes
I would find it insanely weird for a person to be COMPLETLY open minded, there should be limits to what anyone is willing to put up with imo.
@@GiRR007 well what I mean is a situation like this, and I'll make it non political.
Person a: "I'm pretty open minded when it comes to food. My favorite food is Mexican food"
Person b: "Do you wanna try Indian food?"
Person A: "No I don't think I would like it"
Person B: "How about Indian style Tacos?"
Person A: "yeah, I would try that. I'm pretty open minded".
It's subtle, but you can see how person A isn't actually open minded, but is only opened minded to the extent it fits within some predefined range of beliefs.
@@Cvsthepharmacy My point is I dont think its even possible for anyone on this planet to be completely open minded .
@@GiRR007 oh, I see. Yeah that's fair. But what I was saying is people who say they are open minded aren't actually very open minded , or only open minded in certain specific areas.
Problem is that those usually complaining about open mindedness during such emergencies are usually quack conspiracy theorists mad that the rest of society won't accept their bullshit.. for e.g. antivaxxers
Prescribing antipsychotics? Jesus Christ, you’re a monster lmao I have been on risperidone and my artistic abilities vanished, I had a dystonic reaction too that caused a 10 month long headache according to my surgeon do to the sequence of events.
I’ve never had a headache in my life until being injected with a medication for depression, I wasn’t delusional or angry I was just depressed from having to quarantine for months away from home. Im not leaving anything out im neither bipolar or schizophrenic and now I have to take Vyvanse and trt for the rest of my life to fix the damages from risperidone and from sitting in pain.
I’m thankful for getting messed up because now I’m going to medicate for ever which at this point I’m fine with. Modern medicine is both a blessing and a curse, I’d rather be medicated than deal with ptsd from my reaction to risperidone, some may think this is a dumb decision but it’s either I medicate or become seriously ill from the trauma. I tried running after surgery everyday and doing more naturally with nothing synthetic and it just wasn’t working out well, it was ok but I wasn’t going to get better without a crutch
I'm very much supportive of vaccines so long as they are helpful to the general population, which is why I'm not taking this 1. I'm not old, fat, or unhealthy... thanks for the chat though!
How is this one not helpful for the general population?
@@Kitth3n He said in his comment. smh
I'm sure you're healthy and all that. Even in the chance that you got covid you're mostly gonna be fine. But you will be posing risk towards others. Other people might not be as healthy as you are and if they got infected they might not be doing as well as you could. The vaccination is there not only to prevent people to get sick, but it also there to stop the spread of the virus.
@@tigerpanzer8220 Then why doesnt it stop the spread of the virus? Also youll have to quantify the risk im posing to others as an individual. Also other people are not my responsibility and I am not the responsibility of anyone else.
@@imdunes it does stop the spread of the virus by 60-90 % depends on what type of vaccine is being applied to the population. It doesn't instantly end the pandemic but it is way better than no vaccine at all
You also need to take account for other people who are unable to get vaccinated due to their health condition such as having auto-immune diseases, cancer, etc or just simply not getting it because the distribution hasn't reach their place.
I'm not gonna argue about whether you have responsiblity towards other people. but at the same time this kind of mindset is the reason why the pandemic doesn't stop because nobody cares about other people's wellbeing. For example some people doesn't bother to wear a mask because they don't care if other people gets infected by them. In turn other people don't care about you if you get infected from them. It's a neverending loop because people just doesn't bother to care about other people's lifes for a bit
"How to Have Impossible Conversations" by Peter Boggosian
I understand this girl wanting her mom to get vaccinated, but she's viewing it from the point of view that she is right and her mom is objectively wrong, so therefore her mom's mind must be changed. I don't think it's that black and white and this young woman should love and do her best to understand her mom's personal health choice in this matter instead of just trying to convince her otherwise.
That would be as irresponsible as letting a child eat whatever they find on the floor.
Tell me youre an antivaxxer without telling me youre an antivaxxer lol
Personal health choice, to allow yourself to get sick and pass sickness to others?
@@jackcheung3200 If your vaccinated you still transmit the disease. Also no one is accounting for natural immunity which has been suggested through "scientific study" to be stronger than vaccination immunity. So once again you're assuming your correct and everyone else is wrong.
@@lanceroygames You know there's only one way to get natural immunity right? Saying that people should rely on natural immunity for protection the virus is ridiculous, since they had to get the virus with no protection in the first place to get that immunity.
Love how many things follow the bell curve!
My question is that why is "my body, my choice" not a valid argument. Surely if people can still spread the virus despite being vaccinated, then the risk of the family gettogether mostly falls on the unvaccinated. Surely the consequence should be the risk that covid has on the unvaccinated rather than the push towards shunning people from society. If there's a push towards normalising restricting social interactions and employment based on vaccination, doesn't this mean that the innocent are punished if there was ever a point in a future where a vaccine did have adverse effects since they weren't capable of making an informed decision? Never before were vaccines forced. With mandates being pushed, do we trust that there will never be a vaccine without severe side effects? It feels like there is a big potential for the current state of affairs to backfire even if not now, decades into the future. I also sympathise with all of these people who had a life threatening illness who couldn't afford the time in lockdown.
If you're not vaccinated the infection will more likely linger within you for longer, giving it a bigger window for potential mutations and thus increasing the chance of a new variant that can be more resistant to the current vaccines. So it's not just your body that's at play here, you're literally making it less safe for others. That's without even getting into transmission, which is a more nuanced topic (and I'm not up to date with it rn), but taking the vaccine could potentially decrease the spread as well. The side effect fear is just illogical too, the chances of getting and dying from covid are higher. It's like not going into an ambulance after a deadly wound because you're afraid of a car accident. Any unknown side effects have already proven to be too rare to be relevant by virtue of still being unknown. Theres no reason to believe in long term side effects either, there's nothing in them that could cause something like that. Certain vaccines are already mandatory for several things, so I also don't get the ethical predicament here, given that a lot of the same people refusing the vaccine don't care about the others. Literally all of the counter arguments if valid against the vaccine, would also be valid (more so even) against tons of other medicines that people use on the regular, yet this vaccine is singled out. Weird.
@@shadez123 Thanks, I appreciate the response. I find myself slightly on the hesitancy towards the vaccine, but not largely so. I don't interact with others so felt like it wasn't a big deal for me. Admittedly that is something I should probably change. My concerns are that the discussion is less about choice and compassion, but instead one that seems to be more politicised. One thing that has made me hesitant is that those pro-vaccine tend to be dehumanising when it comes to online discussion, so it's good to see a point of view that is more informative. Of course anti-vaxxers can similarly be hostile, but I assume most platforms are more likely to clean that up more.
It does make me question the balance between human rights and protecting people. Ideally we should inform people and let them make the right decisions, but evidently things like obesity and drug abuse are still big issues despite all of the information that has been pushed. I guess that is why the mainstream has been focusing more on emotion, but it does feel manipulative. It feels like there's a choice between freedom and allowing dangerous ideas, and less respectful actions that can lower death rates. It doesn't sit right with me.
Very good video, I have a friend who has a similar issue with his mom and I think I will be able to give good advice thanks to you. 😀
What would be a good way to approach someone who talks a lot and doesn't seem to listen?
Let them talk and know they're being listened to.
As someone who talks alot and doesn't seem to listen... it can be hard to notice yourself doing that. It can be easy to be like that, even if you want to listen. It doesn't always come from a bad place.
Sometimes people have a lot of garbage in their thoughts to sift through.
Sometimes people get caught in their struggle to precisely phrase their beliefs, whilst not trusting that you will understand unless you succeeded in precisely phrasing their beliefs.
Combine the two points above. Delicious.
Sometimes people have thoughts reacting to everything you say, and they forget not to express all of them so you have the chance to speak.
Maybe the idea that they should do effort to make sure you have a chance to speak doesn't occur to them.
Maybe they are stuck in a mindset that when you are trying to show them a different one. There is a difference between trying to see how the points of others are true within your perspective, or if it occurs to you that they might be describing a different one.
And sometimes you think you understand someone based on the first sentence of their explanation, but you really just don't.
All of this happens, and much more I'm sure.
So anyways, what are your experiences as someone who encounters people that talk too much?
Thank you!
If you need to convince people, then maybe you're the problem.
That's not how logic works...
Not all truths or things that exist in reality are obvious though. Quantum mechanics and systemic racism are two very strong examples.
@ES Videos I mean, the existence of everything mandates it? If you were a physicist, you could continue your work while continuing to insist that quantum mechanics is made up, but you'd accomplish absolutely nothing. Or I guess as a non-physicist you could insist it's not real, but then you'd be forced to swear off pretty much all electronic devices like phones and computers at this point, since they're built with an intimate understanding of qm? All in all you just end up refusing to accept reality for no reason
@ES Videos that's such an "off" response. Like saying, "Nobody mandates the laws of physics." I mean you're right but it's still a thing whether you care to acknowledge it or not.
Like that DW meme of her not being able to read so the rules written down don't apply to her. Basically you can't use ignorance as an excuse to ignore reality. I should say you can but be ready to suffer the consequences.
If you want to learn how to convince someone, watch 12 angry men
not like a movie or documentary or anything, just find 12 angry men and watch them
I’m vaxxed I’ll put that out there/ but a whole family that is vaxxed is worried about one person coming to the party that isn’t and they are the scared ones? Little weird
EXACTLY. The kid is the at fault one.
No vaccine is 100% effective, especially if the vaccinated are high risk. Just because seat belts are effective, it doesn't mean you should drive drunk or ride with a drunk driver if you can avoid it.
@@eiendeeai Analogy doesn't work because the virus has a 99.97% survival rate before the vaxx was ever mass produced. You're not dicing with death here. try again.
@@C-R-l-M-S-O-N I'm pretty sure the survival rate for getting the common cold is like 99%, would you share a drink with someone who is visibly sick with a cold? Probably not. Being sick sucks, even if you live. It's not fun and could ruin your week. Way before CV19 people were staying away from someone that had a decent likelyhood of making them sick. A lot of poeple don't even kiss their S/O when they are sick. Wanting to stay away from unvaccinated indoors at a party is pretty natural behavior, even if you are vaccinated, as a person you typically want to avoid the chance of something that could make you be in bed for a few days, even if you know that the vaccine will prevent you from dying.
@@EdreesesPieces just get a test to see if they are sick lol. it shouldn't matter if they are vaccinated or not. id literally pay for someone to give me covid at this point. give me that natural immunity please
Dr. K has the coolest job.
Yay! Thanks for this
Why did I feel so hyped when he said to match their energy and then diffuse it? Must be on to something.
This is exactly how I have convinced about a dozen friends already to not take the vax, and be against mandates. The dangers of compliance, history of tyranny, and current events in Australia
@Ladiesman1447 you really are a fool
you are doing gods work
Many people have thoughts and behavior based on what they have experienced repeatedly. It does NOT all make sense in their minds. If it did all made sense then they could answer any relevant question about their views or behavior. Most people have several diffferent responses that they have seen other people (often their their parents) do. They compare the current situation with previous situations, decide which previous situation is the most similar, and then respond to the current siutation in the same way they responded to the previous situation. Then if that response does not work, they try another response.
The best way to learn something is by teaching it.
Based on that:
The best way to convince someone is to let them teach you their wrong take. While you make good questions, they will convince themselfs since we are our best teacher.
Y'know I feel like I'm halfway there. I'd understand people to not be resentful but, even though I felt it was a decent way to open communication with people that way, it always felt I still couldn't share that sentiment. And I can here it now, I was thinking, "I understand you and the way you came to your conclusions and won't judge you or hate you for being wrong." After this video, I can tell that what I was missing was actually omitting the "for being wrong" part. Time to test the waters :3
Excessive force justifies and validates retaliation. applies to talking with people you dont agree with too.
Well, I'm convinced