Nobel Intent had a good article on the vaccine-autism scare. (See
here and the root article
here.) While it is convenient and easy (and true) to brand as stupid the death knuckle grip some have on the idea that autism is caused by vaccines, it doesn't address a deeper issue. Why people hold on to such things in the face of evidence to the contrary? Aside from deeper, evolutionary issues (a Shermer video
here), there's an odd thing going on. People believe this sort of thing even when it's reproductively harmful. In effect, they are creating a negative selection pressure. They are not looking out for their own self interest.
I'm a big believer in self interest. Not because I believe in selfishness as some odd sort of moral imperative, a la Ayn Rand, but because it is a reasonable means to detect baloney. For example, it's interesting that you rarely hear non-smokers tout the benefits of smoking. Smokers have a vested interest in smoking. Therefore, you would expect them to bring up arguments such as freedom of assembly, etc., that would allow them to smoke. This robs their arguments of credibility-- or at least the arguers of any pretense to authority. However, non-smokers, since presumably they have no vested interest in smoking, can be assumed to be at least neutral or negative on the subject and therefore have more credibility.
Cui bono is a good method for exercising skepticism.
Non-smokers in favor of smoking please leave your credit card number in the comment section below. I'll be getting in touch with you.
But when people actively follow what is demonstrably against their own best interests (blue collar workers voting for George Bush or Ronald Reagan or anybody believing anything coming out of the mouth of Ann Coulter, for example), I get interested. The baloney detector falls apart and I'm left to that last resort of those trying to make sense of a random world, thinking.
Vaccination works by accommodating risk. The disease is risk A. Vaccination is risk B. As long as Risk B is substantially less that Risk A, it is to you and your child's advantage to court Risk B to avoid Risk A. This is elementary. A child of three can figure this out.
Why would a rational adult put their child in danger?
Yeah, I heard that in the back. The other reader. We're talking about kids and parents here. Where does rationality fit in? Ignore him.
Let's look at another example just for fun.
Public health is arguably one of the most successful governmental programs in history. (Interesting historical article
here. Wikipedia
here.) It's the public health movement that gave us clean water, sewage treatment systems, vaccinations and the Center for Disease Control. The fundamental premise of the movement was this: disease knows no class nor income. Therefore, keeping anybody healthy keeps everybody healthy.
Yet, America does not have universal health care. If you're poor, the only recourse you have is the ER. We
punish people for being poor by denying them health care. What happens? Disease comes out of poverty but it doesn't stay there. Is it a surprise that we have a nasty influenza coming across the border from Mexico? Diseases know no boundary. Denying that fact costs us-- and we deny and ignore the cost. Everything's rosy and right with the world.
Or another one. One of GM's big problems is funding health care for pensioners. Even Korea has noticed
this. Health plans are a huge cost of doing business-- one of the reasons the USA has trouble staying competitive. (See
here.) I'm not surprised that the insurance companies like to say that single payer systems don't work. Nor am I suprised that conservative pundits hate the idea. (See?
Cui bono works!)
What I don't understand is how the electorate can possibly buy it. Health care costs is money out of pocket. It's time away from work. It's watching your kids get sick. Yet, when the single payer system under Clinton was trotted out, a couple of advertisements were able to derail them. That wouldn't have happened had not the public been prepared to dump the idea. Somehow, CEOs who make millions of money denying drugs and procedures were ranked higher than legislators that could, in fact, be voted out.
Cui bono failed.
How does that work? People sacrificed their own self interest-- sacrificed what was best for themselves-- on the alter of some odd ideology or fear.
One of my favorite John Carpenter films is
They Live. Aliens live among us and bombard us continually with subliminal messages saying: "Marry and reproduce." "Stay asleep." "Obey."
I thought it was fiction.
====================
Links of InterestThe Ocean: Things are not wellAfrigadgetHold your head up, sauropods and
here100,000 feet or bustDIY LivingInvasion of the painted ladiesThe Candyfab 6000Glowing monkeys. Yep. They're real.DIYLaser CutterCNC RouterSwing set generatorChocolate Ballslight saberIR GogglesHow to get a free yachtElectrolytic rust removalBike paintingFinding chickensCountry buildingsSmall barnsChicken coops
Posts
