r/skeptic • u/PIE-314 • 2d ago
Dr. Mike Jubilee was bad
https://youtu.be/o69BiOqY1Ec?si=pmaY93gnd2XcQTcI
Did anybody watch this because for me, it was difficult to sit through. This is why we don't "debate" anti science quacks unless it's for fun.
He was way too soft and wanted to be "nice". They steamrolled him. It was one long gish-gallop and he was basically impotent.
97
u/TommyTwoNips 2d ago
Jubilee is king of producing unproductive, political rage-bait. It's honestly impressive how well they've refined the formula.
14
u/PIE-314 2d ago edited 19h ago
Sam Seder and Steven Bonnell (Destiny) crushed it 🤷♂️
12
u/klodians 2d ago edited 2d ago
I agree, but it's still probably mostly unproductive except to further separate us. I'd guess almost everyone comes out after watching it with their views reinforced no matter what side.
Whether that's good or bad, I don't know. I generally enjoy watching the good ones like Sam Seder, Destiny, even Ben Shapiro and Charlie Kirk have interesting moments. It can be incredibly frustrating and I hate that they just keep bringing back the same few debaters like the theocracy dude, but overall, I think they're doing fine.
I wish they would modify the format a little to stop the pattern of the group voting out in order to stop the argument from the one. So many times when Sam was cooking and then had to stop because they didn't want him to keep going.
4
u/redditisnosey 1d ago
I agree, but it's still probably mostly unproductive except to further separate us. I'd guess almost everyone comes out after watching it with their views reinforced no matter what side.
To speak in Susie Myerson voice "Fuck productive show me the money asshole"
That is what it's about in the end.
166
u/mental-echo- 2d ago
Actually I thought he did very good. And I’m tired of people debating while being condescending, rude, angry, or emotional to the point that the opposition is thinking about the vibe more than the talking points.
54
u/Lucky_LeftFoot 1d ago edited 1d ago
I think he was quite gracious in his responses and allowed them to speak. I was just hoping he would scrutinize their reasoning a lot more
34
u/PIE-314 1d ago
They are plants that are not in good faith. He should have interrupted them and break down their points not sit and listen to a story, anecdote and 30 rehearsed bad faith anti vax talking points.
NONE of these people are "regular people" questioning vaccines in good faith.
2
u/imbrickedup_ 1d ago
Yeah the goal of this is not to push a pro or anti vax idea, it’s just to fill something that gets views
1
u/Qinistral 21h ago
You’re way too confident in that with no evidence. Check what sub you’re in.
2
u/PIE-314 19h ago
Lol. Go research those people and let me know what you come up with. I'll wait.
I thought I was in skepric where people cared about thos shit. I have a real problem with these frauds and the disinformation they spread to other idiots.
This is literally, EXACTLY, how we got MAGA.
1
u/Qinistral 19h ago
If you have evidence feel free to share it. I just constantly see mind readers on Reddit and it gets old.
4
u/RunMysterious6380 1d ago
He will. He will very likely come out with additional videos discussing specific issues that were presented, in detail, and draw on this "debate" for specific topics.
Just like he did with that prominent weirdo doctor that he did a podcast interview with, that was saying that cigarettes don't harm people. He did followup videos and eviscerated the guy with facts, studies, and much deeper analysis.
-7
u/zenwalrus 1d ago
Doctors who are provax: good, smart
Doctors who question vaccine safety after personal observation and would like more studies to be done: bad, stupid.
4
u/RunMysterious6380 1d ago
Questioning vaccine safety at this point is like questioning if the world is actually round.
Except in this case, it's actively harmful to individuals and society as a whole.
-4
u/zenwalrus 1d ago
Oh, good. So they can do or withhold anything. Vaccine manufacturers are indemnified against prosecution and the vaccines are mandated. So what could go wrong?
1
u/MasterMagneticMirror 13h ago
The safety of vaccines is constantly checked. It's just that they are found to be safe and anti-vaxxer don't accept that because it goes against their preconceived notions.
0
u/zenwalrus 8h ago
Thanks for not addressing a single one of my points and railroading straight to ad hominem. Yeah, you sure are skeptical…
2
u/MasterMagneticMirror 8h ago
Which points? That those that are not yet convinced of vaccine safety are justified in their position? Because I did address it by pointing out that the evidence of the safety of vaccines is so strong that those who doubt it are either ignorant or in bad faith. Being skeptical doesn't mean denying the evidence when it doesn't suit your preconceived notions like you are doing.
1
u/zenwalrus 7h ago
Still skating around them. Not even addressing a single one. I suppose that makes it easier to be subjective. I’ll show myself out.
→ More replies (0)1
u/man-vs-spider 4h ago
It’s quite difficult to push back against the anti-vaxers in this format. There arguments are largely anecdotal based on what happens to kids. You’ll seem pretty heartless if you call them liars or discredit their story
29
u/KTKannibal 2d ago
I agree. I appreciate how he stayed calm and rational throughout and was debating with a kind and understanding manner. The fact is, while I disagree with anti-vaxxers, some DO have good points, such as the one woman who basically said 'with the history of human experimentation the government has against certain people, WHY should they suddenly trust the government regarding medical practices.' I'm white, so I haven't experienced this kind of medical abuse, but it's been common for POC to have experienced issues in the medical community, so I can understand why they wouldn't want to trust the government or medical system. Dr. Mike seemed to understand that and gave great bedside manner.
67
u/RepresentativeAge444 2d ago
As a black man who is educated on some of these atrocities that dog doesn’t hunt for me. The reason is because with Covid all of the richest people in the world got the vaccines. And the top politicians. It therefore doesn’t make sense to liken it with something like the Tuskegee experiments. Historical wrongs aren’t a reason to abandon critical thinking skills. Especially with something as dire as a global pandemic.
25
u/lonnie123 1d ago
Great perspective
Initial skepticism is absolutely 100% warranted, but when the evidence that comes in squashes your points you must relent to the truth in the face of it
15
u/TheReasonSeeker 1d ago edited 14h ago
As black person who is finishing education pertaining to health policy with good knowledge of social determinants of health, it's extremely important to come at this from a point of empathy and communication when dealing with the fears historically racialized communities. If someone invokes the US' history of human experimentation or neglect, be it the Tuskegee experiment, the AIDs crisis, or any other number of atrocities, they key is not to discard their perspective, but gently lay out the underlying rationale and overwhelming data on the standards of vaccine usage. Dr. Mike took the correct approach of showing compassion and accepting fears validated by historical events, while explaining why he is a proponent for vaccines and the reasoning behind public health procedures. Callously or condescendingly dismissing people's concerns, even when they're incorrect, doesn't serve to help them.
That said, I personally hate Jubilee because I don't believe in platforming dangerous, thoroughly debunked positions, and a lot of the people who go on there are grifters/paid actors with a social media following. Like the young guy with the glasses who's in every video these days.
4
u/International_Bet_91 1d ago
And, correct me if I am wrong, wasn't the issue in Tuskegee that people were NOT treated? From what I remember, it wasn't that prisoners were being used as guinea pigs for a drug, but that they were the control group.
5
u/RepresentativeAge444 1d ago
Yes it was under the guise of a healthcare study and was actually to observe the untreated effects of syphilis. As you mentioned they were not given treatment even after it was readily available.
3
u/KTKannibal 2d ago
I definitely do agree with you, I just guess I feel like it's not my place to make too harsh a judgement about other peoples situations that I know I'll never have to cope with. Maybe that's naïve though. I'll bring up the topic with my therapist to discuss though!!
7
u/RepresentativeAge444 1d ago
Haha no I get where you’re coming from and I understand how some poc may be skeptical. Ultimately though critical thinking has to be the dominant factor in these things. Of course that’s an indictment on our educational system which is another conversation.
9
u/vigbiorn 2d ago
I'm white, so I haven't experienced this kind of medical abuse, but it's been common for POC to have experienced issues in the medical community
They've experienced issues with most communities in the US except for their own and the Spiritualists. So why believe the woo industry? I get residual mistrust but I don't get that turning into trust for alt med.
3
u/IslandDrummer 2d ago
Yeah, as much as they infuriate me, I have a lot of sympathy for anti-vaxxers. They are rightfully skeptical of the healthcare industry and government institutions (especially in America) and are merely trying to do what's right for them and - usually - their children. However, being skeptical without the capacity for critical thinking can lead to dangerous thinking. They were just fed misinformation or disinformation at some point along the way are now victims of their own beliefs.
0
4
u/shinbreaker 1d ago
The bad thing was that the antvaxxers just wanted to lecture him hence they kept getting flagged so quickly. The good thing is that this is making the rounds and people are realizing how batshit these people are. Normies who aren’t online all the time don’t pick up on how they know some crazies but they don’t realize it. Then they see something like this and recognize the same language and talking points their friend or family say.
2
45
u/fallen-fawn 2d ago
He wasn’t debating, he was being a doctor and trying to be kind and understanding to these absolute wackos.
1
u/GeneParm 1d ago
I just wonder how people watching react to that video. I don’t think any of us know it could go either way.
16
u/dumnezero 2d ago
I learned the lesson long ago via the creationists who wanted to debate scientists (geology and biology).
I'm not interested in watching a bullshit bukkake.
12
u/Bubudel 1d ago
The first thing I was told during my psychiatry internship (training?) when I was a student was to never confront the patient on the morality or sanity of what he did or said on a personal level, and to never express unwarranted personal judgement.
Now that of course sounds obvious to anyone who's ever had medical training, but to those who are wondering why dr Mike was so conciliatory, that's why.
-2
u/PIE-314 1d ago
These aren't patients.
1
u/chrisq823 1d ago
But he spends the majority of his time and an even greater majority of his time interacting with people at work where he has to use thos kind of language to be effective. It's incredibly hard to just turn that off
13
u/det8924 1d ago
I had a very anti vax friend watch it and he brought up how he liked some of what Dr. Mike had to say.
7
u/breadist 1d ago
But that's good! He should like Dr Mike. We want antivaxxers to like Dr Mike. That means they respect his opinion, and have a chance of coming around to the light side one day.
1
u/Samsaknight_X 14h ago
Saying things like light side tho is something that’s gonna push them away
1
u/breadist 11h ago
I'm just having some fun here and being candid. Not really expecting antivaxxers to be reading this.
1
u/PIE-314 1d ago
I'm sure he told you that. I bet he also agreed with a lot of the anti vax lies that weren't addressed.
2
u/det8924 1d ago
I’m not gonna sit here and say his mind was majorly changed but the fact that he said kind things about a medical professional and was receptive to some of his information proves that in some instances a less confrontational and humble approach works.
2
u/imbrickedup_ 1d ago
It actually does in many instances, except people aren’t exposed to that and instead do their own research to confirm their own biases
20
u/TrexPushupBra 1d ago
I think he did great.
He focused on the evidence, demonstrated he could be trusted and didn't get caught up in the details of the conspiracies.
-14
u/PIE-314 1d ago
He literally sat there, knodded his head, and let them mouth vomit their many, many false claims.
15
u/TrexPushupBra 1d ago
Which made him seem credible and showed the audience that it wasn't research or reason that got them there.
-4
u/PIE-314 1d ago
No it didn't.
9
u/lonnie123 1d ago
Not to you
Lots and LOTS of people fall down the conspiracy rabbit hole because they feel talked down to and made to feel like an idiot, so then when they come across info and videos that go "acksually you have been right this whole time! Those mean ol' doctors are just out for money and are hiding everything from you" its so incredibly enticing lots of them cant help but get sucked in
Someone listening to them, genuinely hearing their concerns, but responding with better information certainly wont get them all to see the light, but it is one tactic to use. Showing them how stupid they are and yelling at them might be one that sways someone else. Both have value and both are out there for you to see
3
u/lostdrum0505 1d ago
Some of the first debaters seemed to be on that side less because they believed a bunch of crazy shit about vaccines, but because they felt lied to and talked down to about a lot of medical things so why should they believe what they say about vaccines. I agree with you, I think he probably was as effective as he could be. He’s never gonna change the mind of anyone in the video, but maybe people on the fence could watch it and not feel like he was dripping with disdain for them. And got actual information about how vaccines work and why they are important.
16
u/drturvy 2d ago
I have to watch it in pieces because it makes me so frustrated, and I haven't finished it so I'm not fully informed. However, we are not his audience. Nor are the people surrounding him. His audience is YouTube viewers who may be suspicious of vaccines but are open to having their minds changed. I think he did a great job speaking to them.
Did you notice how whenever Dr. Mike started talking, the flags went up to change his opponent? That tells me that he might have been opening their eyes even a tiny bit, and if he was making some sense to those guys, he might actually be getting through to more reasonable viewers.
-11
u/PIE-314 2d ago
Nobody was informed by it. He wasn't able to debunk 95% of the nonsense they hit him with.
Not the place or time for "nice."
6
u/breadist 1d ago
I strongly disagree.
It's very frustrating to see these people with their poor reasoning try to argue something crazy. But I was very, very impressed by how Dr Mike handled it. He handled it in basically the only way that even has a chance of changing their minds. He made them feel like someone is actually listening to their concerns, but that they need some course correction because he is the expert on the medical science and they are the expert of their own feelings.
It was wonderful (and frustrating, especially the AIDS denialist... good lord) to see someone actually speak to these misinformed people with the kind of care required to actually make them listen to reason.
You may say they don't "deserve" to be treated well. I don't give two shits about what they deserve, I care about the outcome. The way he treated them gives the best outcome. And it's very, very hard to do well. I have to give him huge props.
-1
u/PIE-314 1d ago
So you don't get it.
The debaters' "feelings" are not relevant, and nobody is there to change the minds of participants. These debates are for onlookers and witnesses.
These aren't regular people. They are rehursed youtubers that actively spread mis and disinformation. They're garbage people.
The VIEWERS takeaway is what's important and is specifically what Im concerned about.
Remember that viewers generally have zero scientific knowledge in the area and have no way of understanding who's claims are valid or not.
1
u/breadist 21h ago
I don't think you get it actually. I'm not just talking about the antivaxxers on the show. I'm also talking about the viewers. They get to see a doctor treat vaccine-skeptic and fence-sitter concerns with genuine human empathy, which is then also followed up with reasons why you should be pro-vaccine.
0
u/PIE-314 19h ago
You don't. The only person Im actually concerned about is the laymen viewer.
Holy shit. No. None of those people are "fence sitters" or hesitant. Theycare staunch science deniers and conspiracy nutters. They were cherrypicked for that reason. For clicks.
That CAN be a great opportunity to expose these people and to educate, but Dr. Mike's the wrong guy for debate style content.
1
u/breadist 11h ago edited 10h ago
I didn't call them fence sitters. I very specifically called them antivaxxers, and I very specifically said fence sitter concerns for a very specific reason.
As in, for anyone who is listening who relates to some of the things the antivaxxers are saying, but hasn't gone full anti-vax yet, this kind of conversation can help them understand why it's reasonable to have those concerns but they don't need to lead them down the antivax path.
1
u/PIE-314 10h ago
You said, "They (viewers) get to see a doctor treat anti vaxxers and fence sitters concerns "......
Litteraly what you said. Now you're backpeddling.
1
u/breadist 10h ago edited 10h ago
Um... Yup read that again. That's exactly what I said
Something is not connecting in your brain, I don't know what it is, I'm not back pedaling, I'm being very intentional and specific with my words. Read it again or something?
Edit: I see now, you are actually misquoting me because you misunderstood what I said. You really do need to read it again. Literally 2 sentences beforehand, I called them antivaxxers, and then I said "vaccine skeptic and fence sitter CONCERNS". The words "vaccine skeptic" and "fence sitter" modify the word CONCERNS. I was talking about the concerns of the viewers. Not giving labels to the antivax people on the show.
1
u/PIE-314 10h ago
Semantics.
Point still stands that he sucked at addressing those fake concerns those anti-vax nutters proposed.
→ More replies (0)1
u/robsc_16 20h ago
The VIEWERS takeaway is what's important and is specifically what Im concerned about.
I think you're thinking that conversations should just be a debunkathon where they're just listing off statistics and facts. The viewers feelings are relevant, aren't they? You should look into the Aristotelian triad. Logos, ethos, and pathos are all important in convincing someone of a certain position.
1
u/imbrickedup_ 1d ago
Yes and when one side is aggressive assholes and the other is well spoken and intelligent guess which side viewers have sympathies towards. YOU just want him to be rude back to them because it would make YOU enjoy it more, but you also aren’t the target audience
3
u/Opening_Persimmon_71 1d ago
When the natural food wacko talked at the end thinking he definitely convinced Dr Mike that eating more celery is more effective than chemotherapy I lost my mind
8
u/DemonicAltruism 2d ago
Jubilee in general is just an absolute dumpster fire of a channel.
They themselves are grifters, in that they take shitty stances, such as outright Christian nationalism, fascism, anti-vax nonsense, and much, much more and present it in level footing in the name of "making conversation."
In reality, this is the same bullshit "I'm just asking questions" we see from grifters and otherwise well respected intellectual voices keep falling for it. Not a single one of them should give these people the time of day, they're not going to change their minds. Ignorance is willful in the age of information.
-5
u/El_Don_94 1d ago
So a group sets up a forum for dialogue in society and you're opposed to it?!
5
u/DemonicAltruism 1d ago
I'm opposed to presenting pseudoscientific ideas as if they have the same footing as actual scientific ones, yes.
Why do you think that's ok? Why should bullshit, harmful, and dangerous ideas like anti-vax quackery be presented as equal to vaccine science which has arguably saved untold numbers of our species?
Further, jubilee loves to take people who are right in the edge of outright Nazism and present their ideas as equal to that of... Same people? Normal people who don't want to cause harm to their fellow man? Why would you want to platform abysmal bullshit like that, other than to grift and appear to "just be asking questions!!!1!1!" ?
-1
u/daimon_tok 1d ago
Because YOU think that, not necessarily everyone else. That's the whole point of debate and discussion.
3
u/DemonicAltruism 1d ago
So Nazism and anti-vax pseudoscience being woefully wrong and abhorrent is "just like, your opinion man"
What a strange stance to take. Must be a Nazi bootlicker.
-1
u/daimon_tok 1d ago
Not only is it your opinion, your choice to label certain perspectives and views as such is also your opinion. Welcome to Free speech.
16
u/ChiefKC20 2d ago
What he did was be consistent, empathetic and thoughtful in his approach and statements. This is exactly what a provider has to do.
By surrounding himself with so many “informed” opinions, he allowed someone on the fence or even skeptical of western medicine to hear from folks that the viewer will obviously think are wackadoos.
How on a single subject can there be so many widely varying opinions? It’s because they’re not backed by evidence based science, but by fact less and half baked pseudo science and opinions.
2
u/PIE-314 1d ago
If I were neutral and ignorant, my take would be that anti vaxxers have reasonable arguments when they had none.
5
u/ChiefKC20 1d ago
If there was a consistent thread maybe, but their arguments and facts are all over the place.
I remember the first time a parent, who knew that I worked in healthcare and spouse is a provider, said polio isn’t that bad, why are you vaccinating your kiddo? I’ve now heard it so many times along with statements like measles isn’t that bad, whooping cough doesn’t hurt anyone, and vaccines don’t work.
2
u/PIE-314 1d ago
Hence why I said it was a giant gish-gallop.
2
11
u/Danger64X 1d ago
This guy is patient and to his credit, he actually listens. I don’t have the patience e for this shit lol.
-4
u/PIE-314 1d ago
That's why he was the wrong guy for the job, and why he lost.
Even I was already familiar with all their nonsense claims.
11
u/Danger64X 1d ago
How did he ‘lose’? You really think he was the one who came out looking bad?
You did listen to the shit those people were saying?
13
u/chase1635321 2d ago
It’s better to be gentle if you want a reasonable chance of converting any viewers that are on the fence. Condescension just entrenches any opposition in their original beliefs, which is counterproductive even when it’s completely deserved.
2
u/PIE-314 2d ago
Debates aren't for that. Either scorch them or don't do it at all because it damages the truth otherwise.
I can't control the channel and shredding them in echo chambers isn't the worst.10
u/chase1635321 1d ago
You're confusing his empathetic communication style with sympathy for their arguments.
Nothing Dr. Mike said "damaged" the truth – he gave cogent arguments, objections, and counterexamples when relevant. That the debate vindicated his position should be clear to anyone, regardless of their prior beliefs, who watched it with an open mind. Demonizing the opposition is an effective way to ensure that subset of viewers don't.
4
u/unreon 1d ago
I thought he did amazing. He was patient, kind, empathetic, charismatic, and knowledgeable. When you have a "debate" amongst people with different levels of knowledge (doctor vs antivaxxer), hitting them with the facts isn't going to convince them or anyone.
There were specific people who came to him with grievances that were frankly non scientific, or anecdotal, or emotional etc. He took that energy, focussed on the core of it and found an area they could both agree on (eg yes I also want "safe" vaccines), and then gave the ONE tidbit (eg vaccines save lives in all the research, and that's why I recommend them as a physician) they could walk away with as something to consider.
I am a physician myself, and this is the best approach we take when someone comes to us with a concern. Validate their emotions, demonstrate you're looking out for their best interests, show them where they might be wrong, present them with the facts, and most of the time they'll come to your side. In this respect, he did incredible (and better than I could ever have done). Half of the people, even if they disagreed, thanked him for his time and many commented on how wonderful he was. That's how you win people in the long run. Notice how a lot of people even gave him time in return to give long responses to answer. This is in comparison to Sam's other video, where people are just talking over each other and almost yelling. None of that is effective.
It's a long discussion that is heavily edited and cut down. The WORST thing to do would be to answer every Gish Gallop response, you'd be chasing down everything and go nowhere. Focus on the core message and stick to your talking points, which he did really well in. It sounds like you wanted a fiery takedown of all of them - which does NOT go over well or convince anyone when you have an actual person in front of you.
3
u/Caffeinist 1d ago
He was way too soft and wanted to be "nice". They steamrolled him. It was one long gish-gallop and he was basically impotent.
I believe his approach stemmed from his medical background. Trying to disprove someone's delusions is often counterproductive. It's far better to try to establish empathy and trust.
In a way it looks like his soft, but it's probably a far more sharper criticism of their arguments that he treats them as part of a delusion than trying to fact check them in real life.
Especially, when they're spewing inaccuracies that is hard to verify in the moment. I'd give Dr. Mike a pass at not being completely aware of Japan's vaccination schedules. So I think he's correct in not trying to call her out on it. Or the fact that Japan, in fact, has high rates of autism: https://www.totalcareaba.com/autism/what-country-has-the-highest-rate-of-autism
And I think that's also an important thing: Usually, debates are moderated. In competitive debates, contestants are scored and judged to determine a winner based on their arguments. Personally, I don't particularly care for the notion that you can win a debate, as it's essentially an exchange of ideas.
Still, I think it's important to consider the arguments. Once you're using fallacious arguments or relying on unverifiable claims or incorrect data, you've basically forfeit the debate alrady. These people may be talking over Dr. Mike and appear more sure of themselves, but they were very much incorrect and did not present compelling evidence to support their position.
1
u/PIE-314 1d ago
Yes but the laymen onlookers DON'T understand what science desires were doing to him.
He was out of his element.
2
u/Caffeinist 1d ago
I believe most people are out of their element when meeting someone diametrically opposed to themselves. But honestly, you're really touching at the crux of the problem here: Too many people don't understand science or critical thinking, let alone argumentation.
Watching political debates, it sometimes look like one side read through all the logical fallacies and took them as a manual. For the audience, it might look like they're winning, because the opposite can't reply without acknowledging the fallacy. Since many voters don't care much about proper argumentation, it looks like a "gotcha moment", and dismissing it appear nonchalant or elitist.
I think, if Dr. Mike had more time with each of his
patientsopponents here, he might have scored more points down the line. Because helping someone with delusions is about building empathy and establishing trust.To be fair, I know very little about Dr. Mike and not defending him one way or the other, but to me it looked like he took the professional approach to respond to some of the more deranged people in the bunch. Which really strikes me as more arrogant and nonchalant than soft.
3
u/bbarbs28 2d ago
I can’t bear to watch the whole thing, but I will say in his defense the clips that are being shared on social media seem moderately effective at supporting vaccines.
I do agree with you though, the debates with the anti-science folk largely seem to go nowhere.
3
u/redjedia 1d ago
“Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”
1
u/PIE-314 1d ago
I disagree. You can learn a lot about people this way. Skepticism is a learned skill and once you have spent enough time in the trenches with these people, you learn their language and bad faith talking points. You develop a sense for bullshit others don't have.
Flat earthers Anti vaxx Alt medicine Bible trumpers Science deniers Conspiracy nutters MAGA
All the same. You'd be surprised how many of these people are around you.
3
u/Dirtgrain 1d ago edited 1d ago
They cut him off before he could get into what he wanted to say in response to the first anti-vax lady . . . and when he was responding to holistic guy right after . . . and with the anti-vax guy after him. It seems like Dr. Mike is not given adequate time to address any of the people's claims. In part this is because he spent time--each time--trying to bridge the gap. Perhaps this format requires one to ignore that and just spit facts straight up. This is not Dr. Mike's style, and I like his style here--it's the format that sucks. . . .
With the guy who brought up herd immunity, Dr. Mike should have elaborated on a point he made with a person earlier--that the vaccine was our way out of overcrowding in emergency rooms and hospitals (that was catastrophic in some cases).
3
u/cognitive_distance 1d ago
I can actually answer this one - I teach about vaccine hesitancy.
The important piece I think you’re missing here OP is that studies on vaccine hesitancy have already proven that telling antivax patients they’re wrong and correcting them with science does NOT help the situation. In fact, it can even make things worse. Partly, this is because it worsens cognitive dissonance and only spurs on further gish galloping. They’re uncomfortable/afraid and if you don’t first reassure them and help them understand WHY they feel that way, they’ll keep looking for something that justifies their discomfort. So you first need to listen and empathize. Leave these steps out and you’ve already lost.
To a patient, your conversation with them is also a demonstration of how you learn and form your opinions. Do you only consider one option and shut everything else down, or do you listen thoughtfully to everything and only then form a well researched and educated opinion? When you listen with compassion, you show that you’re open and more likely to have considered all possible views when forming your assessments.
In this video, he actually did an excellent job listening and building rapport BEFORE saying that he sees things differently. He didn’t make them feel bad or wrong for the opinions that they started with and that’s critical if you want to leave someone in a state open to new information.
It sounds like what you were looking for is something very different, perhaps a debate decided by a third party judge with high scientific literacy. But there wouldn’t be much point in that, the science is so unequivocal it would be over in two seconds and fairly boring. What was displayed in this video was far more relevant to the outcomes of vaccine hesitancy: a debate judged by the antivax patients themselves. Basically, we know the science, now how do we communicate it? The success of our communication is ultimately judged by patients, not by ourselves.
2
u/PIE-314 1d ago
Jubilee isn't good faith discourse. The point of debates is to reveal who is making bad fsith arguments.
It's absolutely not a discussion with "hesitant" people. You DO understand these are chery picked people, right?
2
u/cognitive_distance 1d ago
Actually, under Jubilee’s YouTube description it states: “provoke understanding and create human connection”. It sounded to me like that was exactly what he was trying to do, am I wrong? Maybe I’m missing something here. But it did not present itself as an academic debate decided by third-party judges. It presented itself as forming connections and coming to an understanding between parties who have differing views, and it sounds like that’s not your thing.
Personally, I think that being kind, respectful, compassionate, and a good listener, are the best ways to break down barriers with those who are mistrustful of science. You could have the best science in the world to back you up, but if you’re mean and disrespectful, people will not be inspired by you.
2
u/PIE-314 1d ago
Anti vaxxers don't have differig views. They have lies and false information. They rehearse it so they can burry a good fsith listner/debater with bullshit false claims and personal narrative. They are NOT there in good faith. They aren't "mistrustful" of science. They are conspiracy nutters that flat put REJECT SCIENCE.
Jubilee wants views, not to "provoke understanding and create human connection”.
Have you ever debated a well rehearsed flat earther?
Though this would be clear over here in r/skepticism
1
u/cognitive_distance 1d ago
I see. It sounds like we disagree. I have met some very good people who were merely misled by how complicated the science is and how powerful cognitive bias can be. And I promise you it didn’t help when they were ridiculed as you are doing here, which only pushes people further away from embracing science.
It’s true that some people may never change, but some most certainly do, and I can tell you with high confidence it’s never because people insulted them. It’s nearly always because someone like Dr. Mike was kind to them. And don’t forget about others who are merely observing all this and unquestionably of good faith, perhaps they’re just scared or not sure what to choose. If one party is acting like a bully, they’re less likely to be inspired.
Ironically, you’re giving people a hard time for dismissing experts and science, all while you dismiss experts and science yourself right now (re: vaccine hesitancy). The science is clear; the approach you are taking is ineffective. Think about that for a minute. Will you embrace the science, or reject the science and go with the response that just feels better to you? If you continue to do the latter, how are you any different from the people you are insulting for doing exactly this?
0
u/PIE-314 19h ago
Right over your head.
Jubilee isn't about changing minds. Good faith street epistemology and the socratic method work if you're trying to sway opinions.
You have to LEAD them to the right conclusion.
I didn't say or suggest insulting them. I said he let them steamroll him. Understand that none of those people were vaccine hesitant or were there to learn. They are anti vax with an agenda.
You seem to think otherwise, which is the problem for me.
3
u/Kiltmanenator 1d ago
You know these are dog shit when nobody was actually sticking to the very first prompt
2
u/DontListenToMe33 23h ago
It just takes a different skill set. You can be a vaccine expert, and know little or nothing about the crazy arguments that exist within the anti-vax world. Or just not know how to put a quick, succinct explanation together without prep time.
And often people focus too much on trying to convince the person on the other side of the table, which is folly because they are often 100% dug-in and close-minded.
One of the best ever at this one Christopher Hitchens. Even when he wasn’t an expert on a topic, he could deftly debate it. Watch some of his old debates.
1
u/PIE-314 19h ago
Im saying exactly that. He had no business being there. Completely out of element. The only people who should be debating these people are skilled debators who already know the bad faith script and tear it apart in a way the audience can understand.
This is literally my point. Dave Farina is decent at this.
3
u/MorrowPlotting 2d ago
I watched about the first third, and kind of rage-quit for the reasons you mentioned.
2
u/blu3ysdad 1d ago
I like Dr Mike, he very much focuses on evidence based medicine. But I don't like this format, so I can't watch it. I'm sure nothing of value was gained from this and I wish they would stop doing it.
2
2
1
1
1
u/imnotabot303 1d ago
The problem was the format. It allowed the antivaxers to monologue and then cut off the Dr to stop him addressing all their bad opinions.
1
u/indiscernable1 1d ago
Skeptics debate because science is concensus. Your opening description sentence concerning not debating or discussing is not a scientific approach. Everyone on this reddit doesn't seem to understand that discourse is necessary.
3
u/ME24601 1d ago
Skeptics debate because science is concensus
A consensus among other scientists, not a collection of random people gathered on the internet.
1
u/indiscernable1 1d ago
One person saying they aren't going to listen to an idea because they are a skeptic isn't discourse.
Do you think knowledge is only something to be gained and held by a self stated elite or do you believe knowing the empirical method is a path for all to learn what reality is?
2
u/ME24601 1d ago
One person saying they aren't going to listen to an idea because they are a skeptic isn't discourse.
How does putting the opinion of an expert at the same level as a random person make sense to you as a means of coming to a conclusion?
1
u/indiscernable1 1d ago
That's not what I'm doing. The op is censoring themselves because of arbitrary apriori assumptions not based on empirical evidence. I'm just saying that openness to critique and discourse is the scientific solution.
Are you not even understanding what I'm saying?
1
1
u/PIE-314 1d ago
I think discourse is fine on an even playing field with rules and good faith.
Jubilee has none.
Furthermore, experts should NEVER debate out of their niche unless they are skilled debators. Mike isn't equipped for debating anti vaxx/conspiracy nutters.
Anti science isn't a valid argument to begin with. Its 100% bad faith.
Science IS the debate. Consensus is the answer. It's already right and shouldn't be debating cranks because generally, nothing good can come of it, particularly when done poorly.
It's amusing as frack when done well though.
1
u/ExoQube 20h ago
Dr. Mike was attempting to have a 1 on 1 conversation with each individual. He did fantastic at that. He was not trying to sway the audience watching. His approach could change the mind of the person in front of him, but does a poor job convincing the audience.
Realistically a video like this isn’t changing any viewers opinion. Too much noise in both directions. It did suck that Mike couldn’t give his full responses because all of the anti-vax in fighting. It was crazy how many unique reasons there were and each seem to not think the other had good logic. Almost comical
1
u/PIE-314 19h ago
I understand what he was trying to do. I don't understand you people's need to explain it to me.
What he was trying to do is what I have a problem with. He needs to stick to tiktok or whatever.
Those "unique reasons" are rehearsed anti science propaganda. It's a rehearsed script. These people are all the same and use the same lies and bad faith tactics.
The viewer is the point and Mike let a lot of false claims reach the viewer in a way that makes them sound reasonable to a laymen viewer.
It's incredibly frustrating.
1
u/ExoQube 19h ago
You have every right to be frustrated. But again, I’m not really sure a video like that creates more anti-vaxxers than any other anti-vax content. Because there’s fact-checking, Mike pushing back (until the early buzzer), and the average anti-vaxxer wasn’t allowed to go that far down their dialogue tree. To me, Joe Rogan is the worst because he allows them unchecked, long form content with Joe asking questions and believing it himself. Social media is bad too because it’ll suck you into an algorithm of repeated ideas over time. This was all noise.
With everyone having a different reason, I don’t think any individual reason could be latched onto enough to change vaccine opinion. I guess some of the names dropped could lead to a Google search to get their long form content, but I imagine those people would’ve turned anti-vax at some point anyway. Of the 5 million viewers, how many would you estimate are newly converted (or down the road) to anti-vax?
1
u/BodyofGrist 6h ago
Steamrolled him? Did we watch the same thing? He was kind (kinder than I liked) but he held his ground. I wished he’d have slapped a few silly, but what can you do?
1
u/Chaetomius 1d ago
mike can be so naive.
also despite his talking game about wanting medicine to treat people more ethically, he jumps right to the hospital's defense every single time in his "doctor reacts to" videos. He's trained in science, but not communication, and his politics as I've pointed out aren't consistent enough to stand on even if he were.
1
u/Hapalion22 1d ago
I had a similar reaction. It was like watching a cavalcade of Dunning Kruger avatars spout gibberish that infused at least 5 conspiracy theories per sentence. Why are we not getting these mental ill people treatment?
1
u/Bleusilences 1d ago
I don't think this is useful. People on the fence has sometime this idea that if you are surrounded with people with a different idea, it means that you are wrong automatically.
1
1
0
u/nodgeOnBrah 1d ago
These intellectual pencilknecks are ill equipped to handle the brain rot ravaging the country now. Send in a bruiser.
-1
u/daimon_tok 1d ago
It was a complete setup, a total charade. I'd love to sit there and debate this fellow. Even then, he looked stupid half the time.
2
u/PIE-314 1d ago
They are always a setup. What would you debate him on because he's not wrong, he's just not a debator.
1
u/daimon_tok 5h ago
I'd probably focus on the facts around testing methodologies. I'd first try to establish agreement around the limitations of existing methodologies. I think we'd quickly disagree on the outcomes of our limited understanding, but we may agree that it is neither comprehensive nor conclusive. This would be a starting point for a more productive debate.
I'd also probably focus almost entirely on testing. From ideation through the various phases of clinical trials, it's a fantastic discussion and one that is nearly always glossed over with most parties having limited understanding of the actual process and insights gained from it.
292
u/Bad_Wizardry 2d ago
I want to see the inverse. One confident idiot surrounded by 20 educated people constantly correcting them as they melt down emotionally.
One fucking idiot at a time. Let’s start with Ted Cruz. He got up and ran out of a committee hearing once Klobuchar started fact checking his lies in real time.