+
JMJ
I hope you're all keeping well amidst the coronavirus outbreak.
Part of my role at work is to monitor the risk context and covid-19 forms a large part of it right now.
There's a lot of crazy 'opinions' out in the intergnat, some of it down right dangerous.
So ... here's something that I found on Navy Times about have covid-19 discussions.
Also ... don't miss the editorial commentary at the end of the article.
Source:Navy Times - How to talk to someone you believe is misinformed about the coronavirus
P^3
How to talk to someone you believe is misinformed about the coronavirus
The medical evidence is clear: The coronavirus global health threat is
not an elaborate hoax. Bill Gates did not create the coronavirus to sell
more vaccines. Essential oils are not effective at protecting you from coronavirus.
But those facts have not stopped contrary claims from spreading both on and offline.
No matter the topic, people often hear conflicting information and must
decide which sources to trust. The internet and the fast-paced news
environment mean that information travels quickly, leaving little time
for fact-checking.
As a researcher interested in science communication and controversies, I study how scientific misinformation spreads and how to correct it.
I’ve been very busy lately. Whether we are talking about the coronavirus, climate change, vaccines or something else, misinformation abounds. Maybe you have shared something on Facebook that turned out to be false, or retweeted something before double-checking the source.
This can happen to anyone.
It’s also common to encounter people who are misinformed but don’t know
it yet. It’s one thing to double-check your own information, but what’s
the best way to talk to someone else about what they think is true –
but which is not true?
Is it worth engaging?
First, consider the context of the situation. Is there enough time to
engage them in a conversation? Do they seem interested in and open to
discussion? Do you have a personal connection with them where they value
your opinion?
Evaluating the situation can help you decide whether you want to start a
conversation to correct their misinformation. Sometimes we interact
with people who are closed-minded and not willing to listen.
It’s OK not to engage with them.
In interpersonal interactions, correcting misinformation can be helped
by the strength of the relationship. For example, it may be easier to
correct misinformation held by a family member or partner because they
are already aware that you care for them and you are interested in their
well-being.
Don’t patronize
One approach is to engage in a back-and-forth discussion about the topic. This is often called a dialogue approach to communication.
That means you care about the person behind the opinion, even when you
disagree. It is important not to enter conversations with a patronizing
attitude.
For example, when talking to climate change skeptics, the attitude
that the speaker holds toward an audience affects the success of the
interaction and can lead to conversations ending before they’ve started.
Instead of treating the conversation as a corrective lecture, treat the
other person as an equal partner in the discussion. One way to create
that common bond is to acknowledge the shared struggles of locating
accurate information. Saying that there is a lot of information
circulating can help someone feel comfortable changing their opinion and
accepting new information, instead of resisting and sticking to their previous beliefs to avoid admitting they were wrong.
Part of creating dialogue is asking questions.
For example, if someone says that they heard coronavirus was all a
hoax, you might ask, “That’s not something I’d heard before, what was
the source for that?”
By being interested in their opinion and not rejecting it out of hand,
you open the door for conversation about the information and can engage
them in evaluating it.
Offer to trade information
Another strategy is to introduce the person to new sources.
In my book,
I discuss a conversation I had with a climate skeptic who did not
believe that scientists had reached a 97 percent consensus on the
existence of climate change. They dismissed this well-established number
by referring to nonscientific sources and blog posts.
Instead of rejecting their resources, I offered to trade with them. For
each of their sources I read, they would read one of mine.
It is likely that the misinformation people have received is not coming
from a credible source, so you can propose an alternative. For example,
you could offer to send them an article from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for medical and health information, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for environmental information, or the reputable debunking site Snopes to compare the information.
If someone you are talking to is open to learning more, encourage that continued curiosity.
It is sometimes hard, inconvenient, or awkward to engage someone who is
misinformed. But I feel very strongly that opening ourselves up to have
these conversations can help to correct misinformation.
To ensure that society can make the best decisions about important
topics, share accurate information and combat the spread of
misinformation.
Dr. Emma Frances Bloomfield
is an assistant professor of Communications Studies at the University
of Nevada, Las Vegas. She researches the intersection of science and
religious rhetoric, particularly around issues of climate change, human
origins and the body. She teaches classes on rhetoric and persuasion and
is interested in all aspects of argumentation and pedagogy. Her recent
research examines contemporary challenges to science education and
strategies for climate communicators.
NEX out of hand sanitizer? Vodka won’t protect you from coronavirus, shipmate
Tito's Vodka and Dr. Jeffrey Gardner are in agreement.
Navy Times editor’s note: The debunking site Snopes isn’t perfect, a point its information desk makes
clear. But outlets that make efforts to check their facts often are
good tools to use to detect misinformation. We also changed the
headline. The author objected to “How to tell Becky her stupid essential
oils won’t stop the coronavirus.” While we changed the headline, we
won’t change our sentiment about that.
Comments
Post a Comment