Study Finds Surprising Results in Vaccine Debate on Zuckerberg’s Facebook Post

[steveh_131]

Study Finds Surprising Results in Vaccine Debate on Zuckerberg's Facebook Post

Mark posted a picture of himself with his daughter, preparing for her to receive her vaccines. This resulted in over 3.4 Million comments, igniting a wildfire of discussion, debate, anger and downright rage.

A study was done based on the linguistics of these comments and published in a journal called Vaccine (obviously a pro-vaccine journal).

According to study co-author Leslie R. Martin, PhD., a researcher specializing in personality and psychosocial predictors of health and mortality risk at La Sierra University in Riverside, CA, it was a “very surprising” outcome.

“What we really expected going in was that the people who are anti-vaccination or who are hesitant would be more inflammatory, much more negative, very emotional, and not demonstrating logical thought processes, and that those on the pro side would be very logical and persuasive in a thoughtful and complex way,” Martin said.

From the study:

Conclusion

Although the anti-vaccination stance is not scientifically-based, comments showed evidence of greater analytical thinking, and more references to health and the body. In contrast, pro-vaccination comments demonstrated greater comparative anxiety, with a particular focus on family and social processes. These results may be indicative of the relative salience of these issues and emotions in differing understandings of the benefits and risks of vaccination. Text-based analysis is a potentially useful and ecologically valid tool for assessing perceptions of health issues, and may provide unique information about particular concerns or arguments expressed on social media that could inform future interventions.

 

[hoosierdoc]

 

[HoughMade]

Let me guess...the "study" was funded with a grant from some government agency.

 

[steveh_131]

Let me guess...the "study" was funded with a grant from some government agency.

No idea about that.

I did find that the results align with my experiences thus far.

 

[HoughMade]

The results of essentially every major study about vaccines published in a reputable journal align with my experiences thus far.

...so there's that.

 

[steveh_131]

This wasn't a study about vaccines.

 

[HoughMade]

True, but my anecdotal evidence about vaccines is as valid as your anecdotal evidence about the analytical nature of one group versus another.

 

[steveh_131]

My anecdotal evidence can beat up your anecdotal evidence.

 

[Vigilant]

My anecdotal evidence, beat up both of your anecdotal evidences, cause the evening news said so!

 

[steveh_131]

But back on topic, it does put to shame the argument that vaccine-skeptics are largely over-emotional, irrational, illogical conspiracy theorists.

It turns out that they simply employed critical thinking skills while their opponents did not.

 

[rhino]

 

[steveh_131]

I know, Ernie! Even the pro-vaccine scientific journal couldn't find a way to hide the ignorance of their supporters! Facepalm for sure.

 

[Vigilant]

I know, Ernie! Even the pro-vaccine scientific journal couldn't find a way to hide the ignorance of their supporters! Facepalm for sure.

Funny, how polio, and smallpox are nearly eradicated, cuz your kids would be dead as **** if they were still viable, and not stopped by those pesky vaccines? Or was the scientific journal involved in that hoax as well?

 

[steveh_131]

Funny, how polio, and smallpox are nearly eradicated, cuz your kids would be dead as **** if they were still viable, and not stopped by those pesky vaccines? Or was the scientific journal involved in that hoax as well?

Feel free to peruse this thread if you would like to become educated about the history of Polio:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/break-room/380590-60th-anniversary-salk-polio-vaccine.html

Smallpox has a very complex history as well, and I think is worthy of its own thread at some point.

Also, feel free to read the study that I linked in the OP. You may find that your comment here closely resembles that of many of your peers.

 

[WebSnyper]

But back on topic, it does put to shame the argument that vaccine-skeptics are largely over-emotional, irrational, illogical conspiracy theorists.

It turns out that they simply employed critical thinking skills while their opponents did not.

Many people spend alot of time and thought on completely flawed ideas.
I understand that at least can lend itself to a discussion, but it still doesn't mean the idea is not completely flawed.

 

[steveh_131]

Many people spend alot of time and thought on completely flawed ideas.
I understand that at least can lend itself to a discussion, but it still doesn't mean the idea is not completely flawed.

You're right. On the other hand, if the proponents of the idea tend to be critical thinkers while its opponents tend to be emotional thinkers, I would reconsider my conclusion that their idea is completely flawed.

 

[WebSnyper]

You're right. On the other hand, if the proponents of the idea tend to be critical thinkers while its opponents tend to be emotional thinkers, I would reconsider my conclusion that their idea is completely flawed.

I tend not to base my opinions on group think.

 

[chezuki]

Often understanding beats thinking, but to each their own.

 

[LPMan59]

I think it's great that ignorant anti government types and super educated rich liberals can come together to agree that vaccines are bad.

science makes for interesting bedfellows

 

[steveh_131]

I tend not to base my opinions on group think.

The mentality of the mob that is pushing an agenda can be a useful indicator at times.