In communication of risk, we are not to mislead people. It cost dignity, justice, trust and worthiness when we are caught in misleading people.
In US we know the government control information in order to control the people. And the reputation of Tony Blaire gone down to the pit because he misled the people in the decision on Iraq. Hiding information does no good at all.
Friday, November 17, 2006
When our behaviors and believes are inconsistent
When we are confronted with a risk, we often find way to dilute the evidence, so that it goes consistently to what we believed.
It is about behavior and believe. When our behaviors and believes is inconsistent, we tend to change one or another. If we can not change our behaviors, we change our believes!
For example is that when a message goes, "Eating chips makes you fat no matter how much exercise you do." Then, it comes back to the hearer to decide what to do. We know that a chips lover has no limit on the quantity that he takes once he a pack of chips is opened. If a chips lover cann't change his behavior, he has to dilute the message of "eating chips makes you fat no matter how much exercise you do" by searching for opposite evidence.
Buddhism does not actually requires sacrifices and incense burning, but when the Chinese Taoisim believers adopted Buddhism, the habits of burning incense and offering sacrifice had somehow modified the central believes of Dharma and made it a new system. So, basically they perform the "same" ritual to a different set of believes, when the two sets of believes actually requires two sets of behaviors.
In Japan, as the long period more than two hundered years of Christian persecution ended, the Kakure Kirishitan (Hidden Christian) faced strong struggle when they were told that their version of believes was somehow being mixed and confused, they refused to be absorbed into the mainstream of Catholism, and chose to live as a community and maintain the believes that they hold as the right version of Chrsitianity. And that was the kind of believes that had sustained them through the years of persecution.
These two examples would be an illustration of "changing believes when behavior is unchangable".
It is about behavior and believe. When our behaviors and believes is inconsistent, we tend to change one or another. If we can not change our behaviors, we change our believes!
For example is that when a message goes, "Eating chips makes you fat no matter how much exercise you do." Then, it comes back to the hearer to decide what to do. We know that a chips lover has no limit on the quantity that he takes once he a pack of chips is opened. If a chips lover cann't change his behavior, he has to dilute the message of "eating chips makes you fat no matter how much exercise you do" by searching for opposite evidence.
Buddhism does not actually requires sacrifices and incense burning, but when the Chinese Taoisim believers adopted Buddhism, the habits of burning incense and offering sacrifice had somehow modified the central believes of Dharma and made it a new system. So, basically they perform the "same" ritual to a different set of believes, when the two sets of believes actually requires two sets of behaviors.
In Japan, as the long period more than two hundered years of Christian persecution ended, the Kakure Kirishitan (Hidden Christian) faced strong struggle when they were told that their version of believes was somehow being mixed and confused, they refused to be absorbed into the mainstream of Catholism, and chose to live as a community and maintain the believes that they hold as the right version of Chrsitianity. And that was the kind of believes that had sustained them through the years of persecution.
These two examples would be an illustration of "changing believes when behavior is unchangable".
Friday, November 10, 2006
Acknowledge lay value within a particular cultural context
In the book of "RISK", it was mentioned, 'lay responses to risk should not be considered as erroneous or biased if they different from expert assessments. Rater their use and value within a particular cultural context needs to be acknowledge.' (pg.37)
The perception of air pollution in Hong Kong is significantly different between the expatriates and locals, professionals health expert and government. The locals agree that the air pollution is much of a illusion because culturally they have no regards towards the environment to the economic trade-off. Economy is being given more concern than the air condition. And even if there is a problem, we have nothing to do with it, and we can't anything with it.
'Rather, their use and value within a particular cultural context needs to be acknowledge.'Having this as a rule, what should a public health expert do then? How could we play our role?
The perception of air pollution in Hong Kong is significantly different between the expatriates and locals, professionals health expert and government. The locals agree that the air pollution is much of a illusion because culturally they have no regards towards the environment to the economic trade-off. Economy is being given more concern than the air condition. And even if there is a problem, we have nothing to do with it, and we can't anything with it.
'Rather, their use and value within a particular cultural context needs to be acknowledge.'Having this as a rule, what should a public health expert do then? How could we play our role?
Risk and Culture Theory. How about Homosexual?
" A refusal to take sound hygienic advice is not to be attributed to weakness of understanding. It is a preference. To account for preferences there is only cultural theory" Douglos (ibid.:103)
How do we explain people who choose bisexual or homosexual behavior when the risk of getting AIDS or sex transmitted disease would be significantly greater than the heterosexual?
If we need to analyze risk and behavior, does the behavior of bisexual or homosexual influenced by:
1. Individual choice?
2. Cultural theory?
3. Weakness of understanding the risk?
4. Peer Pressure?
How do we explain people who choose bisexual or homosexual behavior when the risk of getting AIDS or sex transmitted disease would be significantly greater than the heterosexual?
If we need to analyze risk and behavior, does the behavior of bisexual or homosexual influenced by:
1. Individual choice?
2. Cultural theory?
3. Weakness of understanding the risk?
4. Peer Pressure?
Do not be anxious
Be not anxious, my heart says.
"Fight for a good fight. And trust that God is with you!" that's the voice.
Trust! Do whatever is necessary, and leave the result to Him. Do not be anxious if the rock had not moved, if He had asked you to push the rock. We could be sure what He had asked us to do, but we ain't sure about the whole plan. He might had asked me to push the rock to train my muscles for a tough fight. The door that He had opened, no one can close. The door that He had closed, no one can open.
Trust!
"Fight for a good fight. And trust that God is with you!" that's the voice.
Trust! Do whatever is necessary, and leave the result to Him. Do not be anxious if the rock had not moved, if He had asked you to push the rock. We could be sure what He had asked us to do, but we ain't sure about the whole plan. He might had asked me to push the rock to train my muscles for a tough fight. The door that He had opened, no one can close. The door that He had closed, no one can open.
Trust!
Friday, November 03, 2006
Memories of Risk-Communication during Nipah Virus.
I remember about how our government communicate with the public on the event of Nipah virus in 1998.
It was "misclassified" as Japanese Encephalitis Virus and I remember how our "respective" health experts came on the TV and told the pig farmers to go back to their farm, nothing serious, you just need to take precaution, spray a lot of mosquitoes repellance, and don't panic!
More and more people died. There were different responses. Some wanted to give up their farm when they close friends died, something was very wrong. Some to prevent further lost, they smuggled their pigs from this farm to another.
The government representative said don't panic, it's not contagious, the vector is mosquitoes. Go back and tend your pigs. More died as a result of listening and obeying what they had said.
Then, the government decided to destroy the pigs in the affected farm, where cases were found, they killed the pigs by shooting. And then, they buried the pigs. Those people were wearing nothing less than what it required for a space battle. The astraunuts were there. And then, the next page of the news was again, it's JE.
The virologists knew something was very wrong, the veterinars formed meetings and helplines to help the farmers and investigated the issue. I was a 2nd year student in microbioloogy at that time. I remember the experts split into two groups, one supported the government findings, and agreed there was a mutation of the JE strain. Another was suspicious, and totally disagreed about it. I was disappointed with the government for totally ignoring the local experties on advices of "This is not JE, this is something real, something serious, and we need to do something!" The voice was ignored, and they waited for the microbiologist from Australia to come to confirm our scientist findings, before they made public announcement, or took any serious measurement.
As a result, several hundreds died. I lost my trust in our ability in risk communication, and I lost confidence in government when it comes to health issues. The death could had been avoided if the government took an early action. The measurements were very different in between JE and Nipah Virus.
They refused to tell the truth. But the emotional hazard was not less in the Chinese population in Malaysia. The threat was not reduced with the fake report. But rather, people downplayed it so much until it became unbearable.
It seems here that risk that the pig farmers needed to take in facing Nipah Virus in year 1999 was ignored or downplayed by the government while the citizens responded to with high anxiety, fear and anger.
Footnote: No one from the government resigned after the issue. No one took responsibility of this case. If risk is intimately related to notions of politics, particularly in relation to accountability, responsibility and blame, I didn't see it in Malaysia.
It was "misclassified" as Japanese Encephalitis Virus and I remember how our "respective" health experts came on the TV and told the pig farmers to go back to their farm, nothing serious, you just need to take precaution, spray a lot of mosquitoes repellance, and don't panic!
More and more people died. There were different responses. Some wanted to give up their farm when they close friends died, something was very wrong. Some to prevent further lost, they smuggled their pigs from this farm to another.
The government representative said don't panic, it's not contagious, the vector is mosquitoes. Go back and tend your pigs. More died as a result of listening and obeying what they had said.
Then, the government decided to destroy the pigs in the affected farm, where cases were found, they killed the pigs by shooting. And then, they buried the pigs. Those people were wearing nothing less than what it required for a space battle. The astraunuts were there. And then, the next page of the news was again, it's JE.
The virologists knew something was very wrong, the veterinars formed meetings and helplines to help the farmers and investigated the issue. I was a 2nd year student in microbioloogy at that time. I remember the experts split into two groups, one supported the government findings, and agreed there was a mutation of the JE strain. Another was suspicious, and totally disagreed about it. I was disappointed with the government for totally ignoring the local experties on advices of "This is not JE, this is something real, something serious, and we need to do something!" The voice was ignored, and they waited for the microbiologist from Australia to come to confirm our scientist findings, before they made public announcement, or took any serious measurement.
As a result, several hundreds died. I lost my trust in our ability in risk communication, and I lost confidence in government when it comes to health issues. The death could had been avoided if the government took an early action. The measurements were very different in between JE and Nipah Virus.
They refused to tell the truth. But the emotional hazard was not less in the Chinese population in Malaysia. The threat was not reduced with the fake report. But rather, people downplayed it so much until it became unbearable.
It seems here that risk that the pig farmers needed to take in facing Nipah Virus in year 1999 was ignored or downplayed by the government while the citizens responded to with high anxiety, fear and anger.
Footnote: No one from the government resigned after the issue. No one took responsibility of this case. If risk is intimately related to notions of politics, particularly in relation to accountability, responsibility and blame, I didn't see it in Malaysia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
