Arrogance, which I'd call exasperance in this case, in the face of repeated ignorance of reality, is justified. You can only deal with willingly ignorant people for so long before giving up on the human race.
And the doctor in the tale did try and educate the mother before she was cut off. She just didn't want to listen.
It's fine to feel exasperated. It's not fine to treat people in such a condescending manner.
People are rational, and want to understand, but unless you make the information properly accessible in the UX sense, your exasperation is due to your own fault.
The doctor did not try to educate the mother. He tried to lecture her. He offered her a bad user experience, which she naturally rejected. People are not machines. You don't just feed the same information format in and expect the same result from everyone.
>People are rational, and want to understand, but unless you make the information properly accessible in the UX sense, your exasperation is due to your own fault.
No. They really aren't[1], and they really don't[2].
Changing your mind is very hard, and most people don't do it. Even if you have been trained to change your mind, the longer that you hold onto an idea, the harder it is to believe the idea to be false. There is a reason Neils Bohr stated "science progresses one death at a time."
You are likely reading this and coming up with a bunch of reasons that you are right, and I'm wrong. Likely: "You missed the point, You didn't talk about UX", or "The doctor was still condescending," or more likely there is some flaw in my argument that you immediately see[3]. These thoughts alone should give you a good idea that it is difficult to change your mind.
There are plenty of avenues to overrule someone's medical decision. You could require vaccinations for school or even get a court order to overrule a clearly bad decision. None of those are "you made a bad argument so your kids are now subject to my decision-making process instead of yours from now on."
It's not a question of accommodation; it's about accessibility. The anti-vaxxers offered better UX for many who felt shut out from scientific knowledge.
The fault does technically lie with the common man in the sense that he behaves the way he does. But we KNOW that he behaves a certain way, and further we have the knowledge necessary to mitigate the effects of those deleterious behaviors and grant the people knowledge despite them. And yet many in the scientific community still refuse to take those psychological lessons to heart, preferring to blame it on "the willful ignorance of the masses".
When you continually run up against failure, blaming the object of failure is not a path towards solving the problem.
Fully committing to this UX analogy would mean for the doctor to pretend that his medicine comes from a religious framework, simply because it's more user-friendly.
> People are rational, and want to understand, but unless you make the information properly accessible in the UX sense, your exasperation is due to your own fault.
This is not accurate. Have you ever tried to discuss evolution with a creationist? The US Civil War with a "The South Shall Rise Again!" sort (the kind that call it "The War of Northern Aggression")?
Many people are rational, but people are also emotional. They get emotionally tied to their particular views for a number of reasons, but those emotions inhibit their ability to consider and evaluate the alternatives in anything approaching a rationale frame of mind. When you're trying to explain a concept to someone that shatters their present world view, you're pretty much always talking to a brick wall. The only approach I've found successful is to hit them in those same emotions, and work back to the rational arguments. Or play the long game, whittling away at it over the course of months or years. But you can only do that for a handful of people.
Yes, that's what I mean by UX. UX is about the intellectual AND emotional experience.
We have the psychological knowledge. It's just a question of putting it into practice instead of taking these knee-jerk reactions of "they'll never come around. Better to just force it".
It's like you didn't read what I wrote. I was responding to your claim that people are rational. People are not, inherently, rational. Emotions hold far more sway over them, presenting them with evidence isn't sufficient because they don't want to be persuaded or because they can't rationally consume the evidence and draw conclusions from it.
Perhaps "rational" is not the right word to use here. People behave with much predictability and tend to behave consistently within the framework of their belief system. Within their own framework, they tend to behave rationally, even though it would appear irrational to one with an incompatible belief system.
Yes, emotional attachment to something will cause people to cling to it beyond its objective due, and that's why UX is so important. You're NOT going to persuade someone with information alone. You must make it accessible to them, which could involve all sorts of roundabout approaches, many of which may not even begin to offer any actual information until much later in the process (especially if you're trying to undo damage).
Ultimately my point is this:
- People do not react exactly the same as their neighbor. You can't make a one-size-fits-all solution and expect it to work.
- People tend act in a manner consistent with their belief system. There is a rationality to their thought process, even though emotions complicate things. But these complications are understood and have been studied extensively. The knowledge for how to deal with them exists.
- If you're going to reach someone, you must first understand what that belief system is, and figure out how to offer knowledge in a non-threatening way.
In fact, this thread makes for a good microcosm of the problem. Some people immediately understood what I was getting at. They upvoted, or gave positive response. Others either did not understand, or perhaps I touched a nerve (negative emotional response), causing them to downvote. One even responded with "It's good to know that, yet again the fault does not lie with the common man. It is always someone else's fault.", which is a pretty clear indication that my approach failed with him entirely. Pure information did not work, and in many ways my presentation of the information has been incomplete, as evidenced by yours and mine back-and-forth, culminating in "It's like you didn't read what I wrote." (a clear indication that I failed to communicate with you effectively).
In fact, my first entry into this thread was filled with attack words, which likely put most people into a defensive frame of mind (especially if they originally agreed with the article). I could definitely have done that better.
It's not easy to do, but I believe that tailoring the message is better than dismissal.
“As I said, there is always a small risk, but if you look, you will see that this is less than the probability of...”
Sacha held up her hand.
“Please, Doctor. Don't try and confuse the issue.”
---
Education attempt, and rejection of such education, in three sentences. After previous education attempt (plus a pamphlet) and rejection of such education.
Doctor attempts to educate in a format of his own choosing. Patient rejects. Doctor then rejects patient.
Normally when something doesn't work, you look for reasons why it doesn't work. You then take some educated guesses at what might be blocking success, and try altering your approach. After some trial and error, you eventually discover how to make it work.
This doctor-patient situation is the same kind of thing, except that the doctor is simply dismissing the patient because his attempts at education on his own terms have failed. He makes no attempt at figuring out WHY the patient is rejecting the education, nor does he try altering his approach. Instead, he ram-rods what in his own opinion makes the best education down the patient's throat, and then has the gall to blame the failure on her.
It's just like in the bad old days of web apps with no UX.
You still haven't answered the basic question: What else could he have actually done, given that the woman wasn't interested in having a conversation - just the answer to a yes or no question.
If the other party is unwilling to have a conversation (to the point where she attempts to leave when he won't give the binary answer), there simply is no way to "look for reasons why it doesn't work". The doctor shows his willingness and interest in having a discussion at the end, where he supports her asking of a non-binary question. What's most unfortunate in this tale of what it took to get to the patient to that place.
By the time she's in the doctor's office, there's not enough time to undo all the damage. The doctor cannot change her mind in a 15 minute visit, let alone build up her trust.
This is a false dilemma. It takes time to fix this sort of thing. Unilaterally shutting her out is probably the worst thing the doctor could do.
> Unilaterally shutting her out is probably the worst thing the doctor could do.
Really? That's what she has done to her doctor. She's chosen a life of potential suffering and death for her children because she wasn't paying attention. If someone has ignored the internet ads, billboards, magazine reports, news articles, and their own doctor, they're not going to change their tune just because someone prettied up the message bit (even though that's exactly what people have been doing for years now, plenty of examples if you look for them).
In the end, I think shutting her out is the best course of action in this story, if only for the children. And for her - it's shaken up her life enough to make her start asking interesting questions.
No, it's worse, the doctor overrules the patient forever because patient can't science.
There are good arguments for compulsory vaccination (excepting legitimate medical issues). On the other hand, this essay is horrible. It's a doctor's fantasy of magically shutting up All The Stupid People That Don't Listen To Him. If Sheldon did this on Big Bang Theory it would be played for laughs because of how outlandish it is.
And the doctor in the tale did try and educate the mother before she was cut off. She just didn't want to listen.