The strongest predictor of whether someone believed in COVID-19-related misinformation and risks related to the vaccine was whether they viewed COVID-19 prevention efforts in terms of symbolic strength and weakness. In other words, this group focused on whether an action would make them appear to fend off or “give in” to untoward influence.
[…]
Our findings highlight the limits of countering misinformation directly, because for some people, literal truth is not the point.
As uncomfortable as it may be, research suggests adopting an empathetic, non judgemental, but firm attitude, without any expectation to actually change their mind.
This is an attitude broadly similar to that of a professional providing advice (e.g. accountants or lawyers).
How to speak to a vaccine sceptic: research reveals what works - https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-01771-z
Unpaywall:
How to speak to a vaccine sceptic: research reveals what works - https://archive.is/1gn2g
It’s not just uncomfortable though, it’s hugely time consuming. And like, I think we’re getting to the point where more collective time has been spent explaining the world is not flat than the human hours it took to find out the world is round. If the person happens to be knowledgeable then they can kill a lot of time through out “what about X?” arguments (like missing links for evolution) and that requires someone with a lot of knowledge to slowly explain, so the approach also biases towards locking up the most knowledgeable people instead of them being more free to do other things (in the evolution example, maybe biology research).
I guess I’m not arguing against the empathy first communication, just lamenting how effective the flood the zone strategy is.