No fucking shit. But he can’t even break it down into a simple one dimensional analysis. He’s still treating it as a single data point and presenting it as such.
The entire point of communicating information is to communicate the details and nuance. Good presenters can do it, bad presenters can’t (or don’t).
No, that’s my point exactly… Public health communication is deliberately oversimplified and stripped of all nuance like this. It’s a deliberate technique taught in school
Ok I have no idea what overall point you’re trying to make in this conversation as a whole, so I think this will be my last reply.
If it is so simplified that it misses the point entirely and to the point that it gives the wrong impression of what’s going on (to the point that I question if the person even understands it themselves) then it’s infuriating to listen to them talk. Which people eat up, and then regurgitate, which is the wrong impression of what’s going on. It’s very easy to give some misleading narrative which people eat up. Most of this is not so complicated that it can’t be explained.
My point is just that the statement “children do better when their parents stay together” is responsible public health messaging. Elaborating on it is heavily discouraged outside a technical setting, because a lot of people will leave that room with the exact opposite take away if you start talking about counterexamples
What you’re describing is following best practices (although he might also have a punchable face, he doesn’t sound very charismatic)
No it’s not. That message is exactly what leads to what you fear: people leaving the room with the exact opposite takeaway. That message is “do not get divorced ever, bad bad bad. Anyone that gets divorced is bad bad bad.” Etc, etc, etc (a whollle lot of other implications that I won’t repeat). You reallllly don’t have to go far to hear people have that takeaway. And it’s all based on based on collapsing all the spectrums of data into a simple data point. On the other hand, elaborating on the details will lead to an actual understanding of what’s healthy and when and for who. You have this completely and utterly backwards. Quite frankly I think your way of thinking (of hiding information and not discussing it) is incredibly dangerous to people and perpetuates horrible thinking in society. You have this completely backwards, what you fear (a lot of people will leave that room with the exact opposite take away) actually happens with what you advocate for. I think I’m out.
*Ok last line because I really don’t want to keep replying and I’ll make it as clear as I can. It’s pretty clear in Project 2025 that the GOP wants to get rid of no fault divorce. That thinking is propped up by this over simplistic thinking of “it’s better for the kids”, “divorce is bad”, and many, many other insinuations and things like that. This over simplistic thinking leads to incredibly bad ideas and support. Ok I’m out.
No fucking shit. But he can’t even break it down into a simple one dimensional analysis. He’s still treating it as a single data point and presenting it as such.
The entire point of communicating information is to communicate the details and nuance. Good presenters can do it, bad presenters can’t (or don’t).
No, that’s my point exactly… Public health communication is deliberately oversimplified and stripped of all nuance like this. It’s a deliberate technique taught in school
Ok I have no idea what overall point you’re trying to make in this conversation as a whole, so I think this will be my last reply.
If it is so simplified that it misses the point entirely and to the point that it gives the wrong impression of what’s going on (to the point that I question if the person even understands it themselves) then it’s infuriating to listen to them talk. Which people eat up, and then regurgitate, which is the wrong impression of what’s going on. It’s very easy to give some misleading narrative which people eat up. Most of this is not so complicated that it can’t be explained.
My point is just that the statement “children do better when their parents stay together” is responsible public health messaging. Elaborating on it is heavily discouraged outside a technical setting, because a lot of people will leave that room with the exact opposite take away if you start talking about counterexamples
What you’re describing is following best practices (although he might also have a punchable face, he doesn’t sound very charismatic)
No it’s not. That message is exactly what leads to what you fear: people leaving the room with the exact opposite takeaway. That message is “do not get divorced ever, bad bad bad. Anyone that gets divorced is bad bad bad.” Etc, etc, etc (a whollle lot of other implications that I won’t repeat). You reallllly don’t have to go far to hear people have that takeaway. And it’s all based on based on collapsing all the spectrums of data into a simple data point. On the other hand, elaborating on the details will lead to an actual understanding of what’s healthy and when and for who. You have this completely and utterly backwards. Quite frankly I think your way of thinking (of hiding information and not discussing it) is incredibly dangerous to people and perpetuates horrible thinking in society. You have this completely backwards, what you fear (a lot of people will leave that room with the exact opposite take away) actually happens with what you advocate for. I think I’m out.
*Ok last line because I really don’t want to keep replying and I’ll make it as clear as I can. It’s pretty clear in Project 2025 that the GOP wants to get rid of no fault divorce. That thinking is propped up by this over simplistic thinking of “it’s better for the kids”, “divorce is bad”, and many, many other insinuations and things like that. This over simplistic thinking leads to incredibly bad ideas and support. Ok I’m out.