The Vaccine Whisperers: Gently Engaging New Parents Before Their Doubts Harden Into Certainty

She had a whole litany of questions. Was it not too much, to combine the vaccines for three different illnesses at once? Was there a chance Tobie could get these diseases from the vaccines themselves? Given that he was premature, given that he was so tiny, wouldn’t the vaccines be even harder for him to take than they’d be for a full-term baby? Why immunize him against diseases that we no longer see? If vaccines were as good as doctors seemed to think they were, why were there so many websites warning against them?

Mari-Hélène avec Tobie

Gagneur listened, letting her steer the conversation, answering her queries one by one. Vaccines were nothing in comparison with the storm of germs a child might be exposed to in the classroom. Tobie couldn’t get the diseases from the shots because they contained weakened or killed pathogens; at most, he’d have a low-grade fever or brief malaise. If anything, being premature made a baby more vulnerable to infection, making the vaccines even more important.

He said that we no longer see these diseases precisely because we vaccinate against them, but that older physicians remember seeing babies die from these conditions. He explained that there had been fake studies — data fudged to make vaccines seem dangerous — that doctors had disproven again and again but that still circulated online. He knew it was easy for parents to get caught in an eddy of misinformation through the algorithms of search engines and social media accounts.

They talked for over an hour beside Tobie’s bed. Gagneur kept the tone light; he didn’t describe in detail the tiny corpses he had tried in vain to save. He was honest, that he worried about unvaccinated children, but he didn’t press her to make a decision: “I told her, ‘I’ll leave you to think about it.’”

That felt foreign to her. “Once we were done, he told me that, whether I chose to vaccinate or not, he respected my decision as someone who wanted the best for my kids,” she remembered. “Just that sentence — to me, it was worth all the gold in the world.”

I post this because, not only have I posted about this sort of thing before (e.g., here; here) but because the modern political climate is filled to the brim with what one shouldn’t be doing if you want to actually deradicalize your opposition.

There’s a very thin line between morality/politics and religion.

One day while I was attending Penn State, a buddy of mine and I were walking to class. Campus had been filled that day with a bunch of Evangelical Christians yelling at students walking to/from class (this was on top of having to deal with the Willard Preacher).

As me and my buddy walked by these febrile Christians, one yelled at us:

Christian: “ARE YOU SAVED?!”

My buddy: “Nope, I’m Jewish”.


My buddy: “Ok, see you there!”

The point of this anecdote is that hurling accusations at someone only works if they’re the same sect as you. We’re all used to street preachers calling everyone within earshot a sinner. This has absolutely no effect at convincing anyone of anything; the only people who would even have a modicum of interest in that accusation are those who care deeply about their Christian identity.

Do you really think doing the secular equivalent — calling someone a communist or a racist — will have a discernable effect on the person you’re throwing that insult at? Or will they just shrug it off like my Jewish friend? The only people who would care about such an accusation are members of your own political party; Deomcrats care about the sin of racism/sexism, Republicans care about the sin of socialism/communism.

As you can read in the article I posted, a much more compassionate approach provides more avenues for engagement and possibilities for changing someone’s mind. So I’ll end with an excerpt from another apropos article on the topic with an interview with reformed white nationalist:

Bayoumy: That’s a good segue to get into your own story. How did you go through this evolution and find yourself on the other side of this? And since then, how have you been able to help people who are still in these groups? Have you noticed any change in the frequency of people who want to leave these movements but don’t know how?

Picciolini: I’ve seen the requests for help skyrocket since 2014. I was recruited when I was 14 years old, in 1987. My parents are Italian immigrants, and when they came over they struggled, had to work constantly, so I didn’t see them very much. But I grew up in a loving family. Still, I went searching for a sense of identity and community and purpose. I was standing in an alley, and a man came and recruited me. I spent eight years as part of America’s first neo-Nazi skinhead group. I didn’t have a foundation for racism; everything I wore as a suit of armor, I ended up believing, and certainly promoting and acting on. But the foundation of racism was never there for me. When I started to meet people that challenged what I believed about them, people that were black, brown, gay—they showed me compassion at a time in my life when I least deserved it. I’d kind of sealed myself off from the real world for eight years, and when I finally started to get peeks at what these people were really like, things changed.

I got out in 1996, and spent three years trying to self-reflect after disengaging, and trying to understand how and why I got there—really struggling with that, until around 2000, when I started … unofficially doing the work that I was doing. I was walking through a mall in Chicago, and still had tattoos on my arms from the old days, and a man walked up to me and said, “White power.” I was out at that point, so I sat and talked to him for a little while. And I don’t know what happened to that guy, but he seemed pretty amenable to the fact that I was leaving. And I hope he got out. But that was kind of my first unofficial intervention, 20 years ago, and I have been doing that ever since.

I don’t necessarily look for people. They find me. I do interviews, I have a TV show, I’ve published a memoir. Anytime people see an interview or a TED Talk, they reach out to me. Because there really is nobody else to turn to. If you have a heroin addiction, there are groups for that. If you’re being abused, there are groups to turn to for that. But unfortunately, if you’re struggling with these ideas of hate, there really is nobody else.

Bayoumy: What does disengagement look like? What’s a typical example of someone reaching out to you saying they want to leave? How do you help them through that?

Picciolini: It’s a whole lot of listening. I listen for what I call potholes: things that happen to us in our journey of life that detour us, things like trauma, abuse, mental illness, poverty, joblessness. Even privilege can be a pothole that detours us. As I listen to those—rather than debate or confront them about their ideology, but creating a rapport with them—I start to fill in those potholes. I will find resources in their community to help them deal with the trauma, with whatever it is that was the motivation for them to go in that direction. Nobody’s born racist; we all found it. Then I leverage the community around them to try to engage them and support them, and try to find ways for them to crawl out of that hole. Typically what I found is, people hate other people because they hate something very specifically about themselves, or are very angry about a situation within their own environment, and that is then projected onto other people. So I’m really trying to build resilience with people.

I’ll also do immersions to try to challenge their ideology—so I’ll introduce them to the people they think they hate once they’re ready, and challenge them in the same way I was challenged. It’s helped me disengage over 300 people over the years.

Bayoumy: What are some of the things that prompt these people to question their beliefs?

Picciolini: Certainly not facts. It’s very emotional. I try to take them through an emotional journey where they come to the conclusion that they’ve changed, and it’s not me telling them that they’ve changed. What I’ve found least effective is me telling them that they’re wrong, or me telling them that they need to think a certain way. Typically these people are pretty idealistic, although they’re lost, typically pretty bruised emotionally, and they have very low self-esteem.

Gilsinan: So it’s not effective to say, “Actually, immigration is often good for the economy.” Then what’s your answer instead?

Picciolini: I’ve always found it very difficult to sway opinion when it’s a group of people. When people are in a group, they tend to not be as vulnerable or as forthcoming. So I think it has to be a personal journey. But there has to be a way to sway a whole group of people, so facts are important—for most people, facts are still important. For folks in these movements, they have their own set of facts. Two plus two equals five, so you can’t argue that two plus two equals four, even though we know that that’s the case. You have to take them through situations where they challenge themselves.

I was working with a 31-year-old man in Buffalo, New York, several years ago, and he had been discharged from the military for an injury that he suffered during basic training and wasn’t able to deploy to Iraq at the time. And he saw all his friends go off to war and fighting for America, and he wasn’t racist going in, but he started going in that direction and became very much of an Islamophobe. When he came home, he started drinking and got really heavily involved in the white-power movement.

He got a copy of my book and he wasn’t very happy with [it], because I had left the movement and he was still very much in it. And after a couple of weeks of talking with him, I finally met him in person and asked him if he’d ever met a Muslim person before, and he said he didn’t want to; he thought that they were evil, the enemy, animals, whatever, insert word here. And when I flew out I had arranged, unbeknownst to him, a meeting with an imam at a local mosque. When I convinced him to go, we spoke with the imam, and then two hours later, it was as if these men had known each other their whole lives. The guy who I was working with was a Christian, and he learned that Jesus was part of the Koran, and Muslims revered him as a prophet—all these things that he never knew. They were both Chuck Norris fans; they bonded over that. We were crying at the end, and hugging.

And now they eat falafel together every chance they get.

But it’s not an easy process; it’s a very, very long process. If you think about quitting smoking, or drinking, or anything like that. For me, from the time I was 14 years old till I was 23, those were kind of the adult developmental years, so there were a lot of things that I had to unlearn.

Leave a comment

Posted by on August 7, 2019 in cognitive science, religion


Perpetrator Religion and Perceiver’s Political Ideology Affect Processing and Communication of Media Reports of Violence


People’s interpretations of media reports about crimes may be biased by their motivations to construct and protect their worldviews and, relatedly, by criminals’ group membership. Two large-scale experiments (Ns = 248 and 1,115) investigated how American adults interpret reports of crimes committed by either a Christian or Muslim, and how these interpretations depend on political ideology. Results show liberals attributing crimes more to religion for Christian rather than Muslim offenders, with the opposite effect for conservatives. Importantly, these biases also influenced how people communicated the news report to others. Additionally, evidence suggests that attitudes toward Islam and not toward Muslims may explain these effects. Implications for how political ideology affects interpretation and communication of media portrayals of Muslims are discussed.

Habib, et al., 2019

Leave a comment

Posted by on July 3, 2019 in cognitive science, religion


Sexual disgust sensitivity mediates the sex difference in support of censoring hate speech


Prior research showed that women are generally more supportive than men of censoring hate speech and this sex difference remained significant after such variables as authoritarianism and political conservatism were controlled for. However, an explanation of that sex difference is lacking. A recent theory distinguishes between pathogen-, sexual, and moral disgust, and we hypothesize that pathogen- and sexual disgust sensitivity will mediate the sex difference in support of censoring hate speech. This is because 1) women typically show stronger pathogen- and sexual disgust sensitivity and 2) people higher in pathogen- and sexual disgust sensitivity are more repulsed by stimuli related to infection (e.g., blood) and sexual assaults. Hate speech can produce both types of stimuli by instigating violence. Indeed, two studies (N=250 and 289) show a robust indirect effect through sexual disgust sensitivity that explains over 50% of the total effect of sex on censorship support and renders the direct effect of sex non-significant. The indirect effect through pathogen disgust sensitivity is also significant but the direct effect of sex remains significant. These findings extend censorship-attitude research, inform the explanation of a similar sex difference in political intolerance, and further suggest that sexual disgust sensitivity shapes political psychology. (my emphasis)

I’ve posted about the bolded part before:

Morality is both cultural and genetic

Intuition and morality changes by gender



Women Want the Heavens, Men Want the Earth Gender Differences in Support for Life Extension Technologies


Efforts are being made in the field of medicine to promote the possibility of indefinite life extension (ILE). Past research on attitudes toward ILE technologies showed that women and more religious individuals usually have more negative attitudes toward ILE. The purpose of this research was to investigate whether gender differences in attitude toward indefinite life extension technologies could be explained by religiosity, afterlife beliefs, and general attitudes toward science. In four studies (N = 5,000), undergraduate participants completed self-report questionnaires measuring their support for life extension as well as religiosity, afterlife beliefs, and attitude toward science (in Study 3). In all studies, men supported ILE more than women, whereas women reported greater belief in an afterlife. The relationship between gender and attitude toward ILE was only partially mediated by religiosity (Studies 2–4) and by attitudes toward science (Study 3).

Journal of Individual Differences

Vol. -1: , Issue. -1, : Pages. 1-12

Leave a comment

Posted by on June 21, 2019 in religion


Prayer makes non-believers more likely to cheat, study finds

New research indicates religious individuals are more likely to cheat but that this tendency can be diminished by prayer. But the study in Religion, Brain & Behavior suggests that prayer can have the opposite effect on non-believers

Read more at PsyPost

Comments Off on Prayer makes non-believers more likely to cheat, study finds

Posted by on June 13, 2019 in religion


Why Dutch Women are Still More Religious than Dutch Men: Explaining the Persistent Religious Gender Gap in the Netherlands Using a Multifactorial Approach


In many secular Western countries, women continue to demonstrate higher levels of religiosity than men. But why does this religious gender gap persist? In this research note, we set out to explain the religious gender gap in the Netherlands for three dimensions of religiosity: belief in God, frequency of prayer and frequency of church attendance. Using high quality national representative survey data from LISS (Longitudinal Internet Studies for the Social sciences), an empirical model is built combining social and psychological determinants. We find that the experience of health restrictions, the personality trait conscientiousness and the gender orientation masculinity contribute to an explanation for the gender gap in the Netherlands regarding all three dimensions of religiosity. For belief in God and frequency of prayer, an additional psychological explanation comes from the gender orientation femininity.

Read more

Comments Off on Why Dutch Women are Still More Religious than Dutch Men: Explaining the Persistent Religious Gender Gap in the Netherlands Using a Multifactorial Approach

Posted by on June 10, 2019 in religion


Effect of being religious on wellbeing in a predominantly atheist country: Explorative study on wellbeing, fitness, physical and mental health


Despite a large volume of research on the impact of religion on different aspects of life, there is still a lack of studies from post-communist countries. In the current study, we aimed to fill this gap by investigating the relationship between religion and wellbeing, physical and mental health, education, sexual behavior and biological fitness among the Czech population. We managed to collect responses from 31633 participants and divided the sample into seven categories based on the type of religious belief and denomination (nonbelievers, believers without denomination, Catholics, Evangelicals, Hussites, Buddhists, Jews). We focused on the wellbeing as our main factor, which we define as composed of a number of sub-variables: physical and mental health, economic situation, self-attractiveness and the quality of the romantic relationship. In contrast to previous studies, we found a negative correlation between religiosity and physical and mental health. On the other hand, religiosity was connected to higher fitness, higher self-rated honesty and altruism, and lower sexual activity, which is in accord with the data from the western countries. Our findings suggest that even though Czechs had experienced years of oppression during the Communist regime, religion and religious beliefs still have considerable impact on their quality of life.

Read more at PsyArXiv

Comments Off on Effect of being religious on wellbeing in a predominantly atheist country: Explorative study on wellbeing, fitness, physical and mental health

Posted by on June 7, 2019 in religion

NeuroLogica Blog

My ὑπομνήματα about religion

Slate Star Codex



Matthew Ferguson Blogs

The Wandering Scientist

What a lovely world it is

NT Blog

My ὑπομνήματα about religion


Understand your mind with the science of psychology -


Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science

Maximum Entropy

My ὑπομνήματα about religion

My ὑπομνήματα about religion

My ὑπομνήματα about religion

Skepticism, Properly Applied

Criticism is not uncivil


My ὑπομνήματα about religion

Research Digest

My ὑπομνήματα about religion

Disrupting Dinner Parties

Feminism is for everyone!

My ὑπομνήματα about religion

The New Oxonian

Religion and Culture for the Intellectually Impatient

The Musings of Thomas Verenna

A Biblioblog about imitation, the Biblical Narratives, and the figure of Jesus

The Syncretic Soubrette

Snarky musings from an everyday woman