[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by Wastedyouth

Good post Double F

It's really ####ing hard not to be upset.

But we do need to try harder. Because no argument is won by berating someone. You will NEVER change someone's mind through shame or degradation.

You will only ever change it by understanding and then getting them to ask themselves the right questions and questioning their own mindset. you can't do that with aggression.

Lessons I keep trying to learn every day.

Thanks.

It's way too easy to get ticked off and Nike swoosh a "Just do it" response.

Believe me, I totally get how hard it is to not get upset.

If you do decide to walk the harder path. I wish you best of luck and lots of will power. For me, it was like asking myself to get out of the hot tub and jump into a frozen river with absolutely no expectation of any semblance of reward or success.

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

But the thing is I honestly don't believe he came here to learn or exchange ideas. As I said I think he is here to "Make a Point" and knowing 3 people that got strokes from the vaccination is well hard to believe, but maybe he is being truthful.

This comment oddly feels like a parallel to the situation. The odds someone with certain types of opinions and are genuinely open to changing their mind often is exponentially low. I agree. For me I perceived he was genuine. At face value, the odds the other individual/stranger is genuine and not trolling is possibly excruciatingly low. But it's possible to be wrong and he is actually being genuine. Parallel to this I think DK thinks the same way but for a different topic. The odds of death or some debilitating effect from the vaccination is exponentially low, but it's still a possibility to be there.

I think there's an extra facet which also ties into something Pepsi said.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

*snip*

So why are you taking the bigger risk?

In all honesty, I keep thinking this concept must be some form or piece of the key towards deciphering some of the disconnect between the two opposing opinions. The word bigger risk is right there for all to see, but it's as if there's many instances of people being on the same page, but different paragraph.

It seems that many who haven't fully vaccinated somehow see the action of a vaccination as a forced event. No matter how low the risk, it's triggered up front. However, by delaying or refusing the vaccination, the risk is random, but still can be delayed to a later time. Most of us might look at something and consider it a nothing concern without much of a second thought, but certain others may look at it and consider there to be some type of concern that holds back a decision until resolved. To the individual in this situation, it's not something nothing. It's a bit more major. Perhaps like someone in a wheel chair looking at stairs vs the rest of us walk right up the stairs multiple at a time without really thinking about it.

To have a constructive conversation, it might be important to go step by step and understand what that snag is, instead of assuming that interpretation of all steps are the same for everyone.

Metaphorically, DK might be looking at a set of stairs from a wheel chair perspective. The stairs/risk he is contemplating is far greater than any of us realize if we do not realize he is in that situation/scenario. A face value, he in theory could hop out of the chair and crawl to the top, but then he'd be in a new type of unresolved situation/concern because the wheelchair is at the bottom of the stairs, away from where he has ended up.

I really don't know what is going on in DK's mind and likely we cannot broad brush all the reasonings that many different people use to not vaccinate. But perhaps if we can better understand the angle and circumstances for the individual's opinion, we can more easily realize how to help the individual to make a decision by contemplating good logical ideas to effectively overcome their barrier.