|
|
|
|
|
by ceoloide
1779 days ago
|
|
This is truly a very common sentiment. Independent of the approved status, the common phrase is "how can we know it won't have long term effects that are unknown now?". Psychological effects of past medical disasters that caused irreversible harm and went under the authority's radar shouldn't be discounted, many people cling to that to justify their fear of the unknown. So how do we set up a discourse that takes this type of fear into account? What are the tricks or strategies to help people overcome their fears? |
|
The more time you spend thinking about a possible negative outcome, the more likely your intuition will believe that negative outcome to be. This affects everybody, even people who ought to know better, like scientists. It's a shockingly strong effect, too.
If you don't couch your logical discourse inside a procedure that translates its outcome directly into action (like an approval process), attention bias is almost guaranteed to override the outcome, no matter how good your reasoning. Since better reasoning takes more time, this leads to the unfortunate circumstance where better, deeper arguments are less likely to be effective that shorter, weaker arguments.